Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London County Council (Money) Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 5th August, and agreed to.

Middlesbrough Corporation Bill [Lords],—King's Consent signified.

Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Pembroke Gas Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

Gas and Water Provisional Orders Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

Greenock Port and Harbours Order Confirmation Bill,

Read a second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

Water Provisional Order Bill,

"To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870, relating to West Hampshire Water," presented by MR. BEIDGEMAN.

Ordered, That Standing Order 193a be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the first time.

Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed—[Bill 168.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ARMY COMMISSION.

Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Army Commission will inquire into the grievances of the Indian section of the. Army and of Indians generally with regard to the military policy of the Government; why no Indian is appointed a member of the Commission; whether the omission will be made good before the Commission commence their work; whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the strength of the Indian feeling against Sir Michael O'Dwyer for his recent administrative acts in the Punjab; and why he has been appointed a member in the face of such feeling?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Under the terms of reference the Committee is concerned with general questions of military administration and organisation, not with grievances; but I am considering the appointment of an Indian member. I do not see that recent administrative acts in the Punjab have any bearing on this inquiry.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India why no Indian has been appointed on Lord Esher's Committee on the Indian Army?

Mr. MONTAGU: The appointment of an Indian to the Committee on the Army in India is under consideration.

Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of the taking of evidence from Indian officers now at Hampton Court, as there are some there who could give most valuable evidence before the Committee?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am obliged for the suggestion, and will communicate it to the Chairman of the Committee.

PUNJAB COMMISSION.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can now give the names of the members of the Commission of Inquiry into the recent events in the Punjab; and whether
he will undertake to select as chairman of such a Commission a Member of either House of Parliament?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am in communication with the Government of India as to the inquiry. I hope to be in a position to make a statement very shortly.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Before the House rises for the Recess?

Mr. MONTAGU: I hope so.

CURRENCY.

Mr. STEWART: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the amount of silver obtainable from abroad by the Indian. Government at the present time is sufficient for her requirements and, if not, will he cause inquiry to be made with a view to ascertaining whether the old rights of the natives to exchange their ornaments against rupees, weight for weight, can in any way be restored so that the Indian Government, in the event of a good export season, may be placed in a position to avail of the large reserves of silver at present on the spot in India in the shape of native ornaments, as was formerly the case?

Mr. MONTAGU: India could do with more silver. The question of an offer by the Government of India to receive salver from private persons will, I understand, be submitted to the Indian Currency Committee.

Mr. STEWART: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that a higher price in sterling is now obtainable in America for sales of gold than is obtain able in this country; whether India is contemplating putting up the price she is prepared to pay for imported gold, and, if so, by how much; and whether the pre sent Currency Committee can be empowered to extend its inquiries to consider the problem of currency as a whole, in stead of approaching the question from a purely local point of view?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am not fully in-formed as to sales of gold for sterling in America. The second part of the question asks for a statement on a matter on which action, if taken at all, would necessarily be taken without previous announcement. The Chairman of the Indian Currency Committee informs me that, in his opinion and that of his colleagues, so far as it is
possible to see at present, the terms of reference as they stand give all the scope necessary for conducting the inquiry and. for making recommendations.

Mr. STEWART: Will the evidence put before the Committee be published in the ordinary course as a Parliamentary Paper?

Mr. MONTAGU: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice. I think so, but I would rather confirm that by reference.

PATEL HINDU INTERCASTE MAERIAGE BILL.

Colonel YATE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the introduction of the Patel Hindu Inter caste Marriage Bill in the Indian Legislative Council and its circulation by the Government of India through local Governments for opinion has caused great alarm amongst orthodox Hindus of all classes of society in India, as am interference with their most sacred religious and social usages which it has been the policy of the British Government hitherto never to interfere with; and will he ascertain from the Government of India whether it would be desirable to take action to reassure orthodox Hindu opinion that no interference with religious usage is contemplated by the British Governments?

Mr. MONTAGU: There would seem to be some misapprehension in the matter. The Government of India is not responsible for the Bill, which was introduced by an elected member of the Legislative Council. The Government are in no way committed to support it, but as it received a certain amount of support from the unofficial members they have taken steps to obtain the full opinion of the Hindu community before the Bill is further proceeded with.

Colonel YATE: Will the Government of India leave it to the unofficial members of the Indian Legislative to carry through this Bill and not push it on the part of the Government?

Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India will have to make up its mind about this Bill if it ever comes to the point at which a Bill comes up for sanction or veto, and for that purpose it is necessary that the Government of India should be fully informed, but it will be treated as private Member's Bill and unofficial.

HOSPITAL ARRANGEMENTS.

Colonel YATE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make any statement as to the amelioration of the hospital arrangements for the sick and wounded in the operations on the North-West Frontier of India; whether he is aware that one officers' hospital was so badly equipped that the patients had to use their shaving mugs as drinking cups and tumblers; that no casualty lists were issued for more than a month subsequent to 17th May; and even wives were not officially informed of their husbands' deaths and were left to hear of it from other sources?

Mr. MONTAGU: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the very full statement which I have made in answer to another question of his. The second part is covered by the request which I have already addressed to the Government of India for a report on the hospital referred to. It is not the case, so far as I am aware, that no casualty lists were published for more than a month subsequent to 17th May. Reports of casualties are communicated to the War Office as they are received by the India Office, and are published by the former. Apart from publication, reports of casualties are immediately communicated by the India Office to the next-of-kin in all cases in which the names of the next-of-kin have been registered. If the hon. and gallant Member will inform me what are the cases to which he refers in the last part of his question, I will have inquiry made.

Colonel YATE: I refer to the publication by the Government of India. I would ask, with regard to the statement in yester day's full statement which is referred to that the scale of equipment of Indian general hospitals has been reviewed and that arrangements for providing additional equipment are in progress, does not that show that the shortage brought to light by the Mesopotamia Commission has not yet been remedied in India and that the pernicious Report of Lord Nicholson and Sir William Meyer which caused Lord Crewe to limit the expenditure on the Indian Army to £19,500,000 is still operating and—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is making an argumentative speech.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Colonel YATE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will permit members of his Council who are not committed to the Government of India Bill as it stands to give evidence before the Joint Select Committee?

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not know to what members of my Council my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but I have decided some months ago, with the assent of my Council, that any member thereof who wished to give evidence before the Joint Committee on his own behalf should offer to do so. The decision as to what evidence they will admit or require rests with the Committee alone.

Colonel YATE: As I believe the right hon. Gentleman nominates the members who are to give evidence before the Committee, will he say how many members of his Council he has nominated; and, as the members he has nominated are presumably in conformity with his views, will he nominate an equal number of those oppised to his views?

Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. and gallant Friend is quite mistaken. I do not nominate the members. [An HON. MEMBER: "Dominate!"] I am quite sure the hon. and gallant Member does not mean that. [Hon. MEMBERS: "He said 'nominate!'"] The Committee know that the members of the Council of India are willing to give any information and any evidence they may be asked to give. I do not know whether any of them have applied to the Committee to give evidence.

Colonel YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman given the names of any members of the Council to the President of the Select Committee?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have given the names of all my Council. In this regard I have said that the Council is free to give evidence, or any member of it, and they would presumably be summoned by the Committee.

AFGHANISTAN (NEGOTIATIONS).

Colonel YATE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India when the full text of the communications from the Amir of Afghanistan and of the Viceroy's replies will be published; and if he can make any statement as to the progress of the negotiations with the Afghan delegation at the Peace Conference now being carried on at
Rawal Pindi, and as to the reasons that prompted the Government of India to grant an armistice instead of imposing their own conditions of peace?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am anxious to give the House all the information I can, but my hon. and gallant Friend will, I am sure, agree that while negotiations are in progress, at Rawal Pindi, it is not opportune to discuss the matter. I had hoped to lay Papers before now, but I would propose to wait till I can include the result of the negotiations.

Colonel YATE: May I ask whether the British Government and the Government of India are going to stand the offensive replies given by the Afghan delegates to Sir Hamilton Grant at Rawal Pindi, and will they not put the foot down, and say, "Those are our terms, and we are going to enforce them"?

Mr. MONTAGU: Does my lion. Friend think that in putting that question, and much more the answering of it, would help successful negotiations?

Colonel YATE: Yes. I do.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

MOTOR LAUNCHES (DISPOSAL).

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there are, some 300 of His Majesty's motor launches moored in the River Hamble; if he will state the original cost, and the present expenditure per week for the maintenance, of a motor launch; whether any motor launches have been refitted with a view to sale; if so, at what cost; and can he state the policy of the Government with regard to the future retention or disposal of the motor launches in the River Hamble?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Of the 300 craft referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, 210 are motor launches. of which 187 are for disposal. The original cost of these motor launches was about £8,000 each.
The present expenditure for the maintenance of one of these vessels is, roughly, £2 a week, including wages, stores, and the cost of three motor launches in commission for attendance on those paid off.
A Committee has been appointed, under the chairmanship of Admiral Sir W. H. May, including representatives of Admiralty Technical Departments and out-Bide experts, to advise on the best method of sale. Up to date 44 of these launches have been sold.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is there any hope of disposing of the 187 motor launches in a short space of time, and, if not, would not the most economical thing to do be to scrap them?

Dr. MACNAMARA: We are taking steps to offer them for sale. A Committee is at work to that end; failing that, I will place before it my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the Committee report shortly?

Mr. HOUSTON: Can my right hon. Friend say what price?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No. As we have 187 to dispose of, I am sure my hon. Friend will see that it would not be expedient to give an answer to that.

Commander Viscount CURZON: Could they be disposed of by private treaty?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is he aware that these motor launches were a complete failure in war-time, and, that being the case, will he consider the advisability of disposing of the whole lot?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I said that 187 were for disposal, and I am not prepared to concur that they were a complete, failure. In any case, it is not a wise thing to say when we are trying to sell them, and it is not correct.

TEMPORARY OFFICERS (DEMOBILISATION).

Viscount CURZON: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state how many temporary officers of the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve are still mobilised and on active service; and by what date is it expected that their demobilisation will be completed?

Dr. MACNAMARA: 2,906 Royal Naval Reserve officers and 676 Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve officers are still mobilised and on active service. It is not possible to forecast with any accuracy the date when the services which necessitate the employment of Royal Naval Reserve
and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve officers will finally cease, but it is anticipated that their demobilisation will be completed by the end of the year. I may add that up to date 7,540 Royal Naval Reserve officers and 4,586 Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve officers have been demobilised.

WOMEN'S ROYAL NAVAL SERVICE.

Viscount CURZON: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to retain the Women's Royal Naval Service organisation and incorporate it in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No alteration has been made in the decision already announced to demobilise the Women's Royal Naval Service on 1st October, 1919. A recent proposal by the Director, Women's Royal Naval Service, to institute a Women's Royal Naval Service Reserve is now being considered.

ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE AND ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE.

Viscount CURZON: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty can announce the conditions of service in Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The matter is still under consideration.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (MERCHANT SHIP REPAIRS).

Mr. LAMBERT: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if all the Royal yards are engaged in repairing warships; and whether such yards could be utilised for the repair of merchant ships, which are so urgently required for the carrying trade of the country?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Royal dockyards are at present engaged in refitting and repairing warships and the necessary auxiliary yard craft, with the following exceptions: There is a small amount of new construction in hand, while one British merchant vessel and two vessels belonging to the United States are in hand for repair. Recently arrangements have been made to deal with the refits of many oilers which, up to the present, have been carried out by private firms, and at the present time four of these Teasels are in hand for refit, etc., in addition to a German cable ship, which is
being surveyed for return to the Eastern Telegraph Company. My right hon. Friend will realise from what I have just stated that the Royal dockyards can be utilised to a certain extent for the repair of merchant vessels, but I would point out to him that the ruling factor is the supply of the men of the necessary trades, which, at present, is not equal to the demand, either in private firms or in the dockyards themselves.

Mr. LAMBERT: Why is it that the Royal dockyards are not used for repairing merchant ships when food-carrying ships are far more important than warships at the present time?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I told my right hon. Friend that the Royal dockyards are fully employed at the present time, and they are engaged upon one merchant ship, as I told him. The shortage of shipwrights and of joiners particularly, not only in the Royal Dockyards, but in the private firms as well, is the difficulty. We have not got them.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are any warships at present being repaired in private yards?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think so, but perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put a question down.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then may I ask him whether it would not be possible, in view of the excellent naval situation, to knock off all repairing of warships, except as regards safety from sinking, and put all the workmen, as an emergency after-war measure, on to mercantile repairing?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): That question, obviously, affects the whole policy of the British Admiralty and the Government. I have said what that policy was on two previous occasions in this House. The suggestions made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman are, of course, being considered by the Admiralty, but to suggest that no repairs of warships, no necessary repairs, and that none of the ravages of war should be made right now is an impossible suggestion.

Sir W. RAEBURN: Is it not the case that a large number of these ships that are being repaired in the yards in this country are being detained and hindered by constant strikes and trade union rules?

WELFARE COMMITTEE

Mr. R. YOUNG: 24.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty the nature, scope, limitations, and composition of personnel of the Welfare Committee about to be set up by the Admiralty for dealing with questions affecting all naval ratings; is it the intention to invest this Committee with full advisory powers on all matters affecting lower-deck affairs; and is it to be understood that any points advanced by any one section of the various ratings are to be discussed and adjudicated upon by all the lower-deck representatives sitting together as One body?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The information asked for by my hon. Friend is contained in a printed Admiralty Order, dated 24th February, 1919, of which I am sending him a copy. It is intended that the first meeting of the Committee shall take place in October, 1919, and detailed instructions concerning it are now in course of preparation.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Who is then to be in charge of this Department, and to what Department will the Welfare Committee make their representations?

Dr. MACNAMARA: To the Personnel Committee at the centre. The elections, as I have said, will be made in the freest possible manner.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Are we to assume the Committee will elect their own chairman or whether a naval officer will be appointed by the Board of Admiralty?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot answer that question offhand. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put a question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

HOSPITAL CARRIERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the fact that six hospital carriers have been sent to North Russia for service on the River Dwina which cannot ascend that river owing to their excessive draught; whether, in consequence, the arrangements for transporting wounded may be insufficient should heavy casualties be inflicted on our forces; and whether all possible steps are being taken to send out smaller carriers for wounded with all dispatch?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The six hospital carriers referred to are six paddle-steamers which were fitted out temporarily owing to the unavoidable delay on passage from Mesopotamia of vessels of smaller draught. They were the shallowest draught craft available at the time, and, but for the abnomally low river, would have been entirely suitable for the service. I am advised that adequate craft are now available at Archangel, and, should more be required, others are on their way.

MECHANICIANS (MESSING).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 25.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty when the order sanctioning the messing of mechanicians in engine-room artificers' messes will be rescinded, seeing that a pledge was given that this order was only for the duration of the War?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The order in question will be cancelled at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL SUPPLY.

NAVAL MEN (EMPLOYMENT IN MINES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state what extra pay and allowances will be paid to the naval officers and ratings sent to the mines in connection with the mining strike; and by whom will the expenses incurred be borne?

Mr. LONG: These officers and men will receive extra pay at double the rates laid, down in the Regulations whilst employed in connection with the mining strike. The question of incidence of charge is not yet settled.

NAVAL CONSUMPTION.

Mr. HARTSHORN: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can say what quantity of coal is at present consumed by the British and Allied Navies; and what was the quantity used by those Navies before the War?

Mr. LONG: It is regretted that information as to the quantity of coal consumed by the Allied Navies at present and before the War is not available. In the case of our own ships, it is not usual to publish figures. I assume, however, that my hon. Friend's desire is to obtain information as to relative expenditure during the two periods, and I am able to inform him that the British pre-war expenditure will certainly not be exceeded when later in the
year salvage and mine-sweeping operations have been completed. My hon. Friend will realise that these necessary services occasion an appreciable temporary increase in expenditure.

DISTRIBUTION IN LONDON AND PROVINCES.

Mr. MacVEAGH: 58.
asked the Lord Privy Seal in what quantities coal and coke can now be obtained by householders in London; and whether the same Regulations apply to the provinces and to the area known as the Home Counties?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I have been asked to answer this question. A coal merchant in London who has provided the necessary reserve stock of coal for the use of small consumers during the winter months may meet orders on hand by delivering to his customers in rotation a load at a time. A merchant who has not established the necessary reserve may not deliver coal in excess of his customers' current requirements month, by month. The total quantity obtained must not exceed the quantity authorised under the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1919. No restriction is imposed upon the quantity of coke which may be obtained. The same restrictions apply to the Home Counties and to the provinces, with the exception of Yorkshire, where, in view of the shortage of coal, more stringent regulations are in force.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-PERSIAN OILFIELD.

Mr. LAMBERT: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what amount the Government invested in the Anglo-Persian oilfield; and what is the market value of that investment today?

Mr. LONG: The amount invested by His Majesty's Government was as follows:


Ordinary shares
£2,000,000


Participating preference shares
£1,000


Debenture stock
£199,000


It is not possible to give any accurate estimate of the present value of the investment, as there is no Stock Exchange quotation for the ordinary shares. It is, however, undeniable that their value has considerably appreciated and cannot be measured merely by the dividend at present paid on them.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is this matter still under the direction of the First Lord of the Admiralty, considering it is a purely financial venture belonging to the-British Government, and ought it not to be under the Treasury, and have representations been addressed to the Prime Minister to that effect?

Mr. LONG: The hon. Gentleman's question appears to me to be a matter of opinion. It is under the control of the directors of the company concerned, to which the Board of Admiralty only send one representative, and, so far as I know, the suggestion that it is under the direction of the First Lord has no foundation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. KILDA (WIRELESS STATION).

Dr. MURRAY: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty obtained from the owners and occupiers of property in the island of St. Kilda gratuitous permission to erect, and did erect, a wireless station on the-island; whether, in attempting to destroy this wireless station, a German submarine injured the United Free church, two crofters' houses, and a house in which the district nurse resided; whether the Admiralty have agreed to indemnify the owners and occupiers of the injured property for the loss which they have suffered; and, if not, will the Admiralty explain upon what principle compensation was refused, seeing that no attack would have been made upon this defence less island if the Admiralty had not taken advantage of the gratuitous permission given, and erected this wireless station there?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty established a wireless telegraph station at St. Kilda in March, 1915, on the site of the old station which was dismantled shortly before the War, and I am glad to-record the fact that this was done with the gratuitous permission of the owners and occupiers of property and without necessity for recourse to requisition. I have received a report of the damage done by bombardment by an enemy submarine in May, 1918. The Admiralty have not agreed to indemnify the owners of the damaged property, who were invited by the President of the Board of Trade, in answer to my hon. Friend's question on. the 29th May, to send their claims to the Air Raid Compensation Committee. I
have no exact information as to the extent to which the claims have been met under the Government scheme which this Committee operates. I would observe, however, that, if some of the claims fail through non-compliance with the conditions governing it, the Admiralty could not undertake to make any grant of compensation as the conditions were published before the date of the attack on St. Kilda.

Dr. MURRAY: In view of all the circumstances, and considering that these people could not know the law, is it not right that the Admiralty should regard this as a debt of honour and stimulate the Board of Trade to pay?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I must not be understood to give any undertaking whatever, but I shall be very glad to have my hon. Friend's representation placed before the proper authorities.

Dr. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all claims have been made?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.

Lieut.-Commander CRAIG: Is it not a fact that, as regards the population of St. Kilda, their access to the coast, both in regard to food and trading, was interrupted by the War, and that it was entirely due to the auxiliary patrol placed at the service of the population by the Government that life and commerce were maintained in the island?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I should think that is quite true, but I am happy to say that also applies to a great many other places.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN FLEET (SALVING OPERATIONS AT SCAPA FLOW).

Commander BELLAIRS: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty in what way the cost of the salving of the ex-German Fleet at Scapa is being met; and, in view of the importance of using all available plant for salving merchant steamers, whether he can say how many salvage -vessels are employed in the work and when the operations are likely to be finished?

Mr. LONG: I would point out that no attempt has been made to salve the sunken German ships. The salvage
operations have only concerned those vessels which had been beached in shallow water before they had time to sink. The cost, which will not be large, is being met provisionally from Navy Votes, but the ultimate incidence of the charge will be settled between the Allies. Only one salvage vessel, which was lent by the Liverpool Salvage Association, was employed for about two weeks in getting these ships off, and the operations are now practically ended.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE MEDAL.

Major Sir B. FALLE: 26.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the Mercantile Marino Medal is to be awarded to men who served on British merchant ships in certain areas; and if this medal will also be given to Royal Navy ratings who served in such ships as gun crew or signalmen?

Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not intended that naval ratings should be eligible for the Mercantile Marine War Medal, the object of which is to recognise the services of the Mercantile Marine during the War, unless they have qualified for the medal by service in the Mercantile Marine apart from their service as a naval rating. Naval ratings who have served in merchant service vessels as gun's crews or signalmen will be eligible for other awards under the same conditions as naval ratings who have served in the Fleet, so that they will be at no disadvantage as compared with the latter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE.

Colonel BURN: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour if any provision is to be made in the case of a man, who, rejected for the Army on medical grounds, was con scripted for national service and had to sell his business at a great loss, and now appeals for assistance to enable him to re-establish himself in his former position?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Robert Home): The answer is in the negative, so far as funds administered by the Ministry of Labour are concerned. Grants from the Civil Liabilities Fund are, as the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, strictly limited to cases of serious hardship arising out of service
with His Majesty's Forces. I am, bow-ever, considering whether any steps can be taken to provide assistance from other sources in this type of case.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour when it is proposed to bring before the House the necessary legislation to put into operation the recommendations of the Industrial Conference with regard to the establishment of a permanent national industrial council?

Sir R. HORNE: I hope to introduce Bills dealing with the recommendations of the Conference in regard to wages and the forty-eight hours' week before the Recess. I understand that the employers and the trade unions will then proceed to constitute their respective sides of the National Industrial Council.

Mr. FRANCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to see that this council includes any Members of this House who have undergone special treatment for mind and memory?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (DAILY REGISTER).

Mr. DOYLE: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the fact that the hours from 9a.m. to 4p.m., during which recipients of the unemployment benefit must sign the daily register at the Labour Exchanges near where they reside, seriously interferes with the opportunities of bond fide workers who are desirous to obtain work, debarring them from looking for it during the most suitable hours; and whether he will consider the advisability of altering the hours from 7 to 12 or 1?

Sir R. HORNE: I recognise that attendance during the hours mentioned may to some extent limit the efforts that applicants can make to obtain employment on their own behalf, but the hours in question were deliberately fixed so as to fall within the normal hours of work, and thus make it difficult for a workman to make a claim at the Exchange on days when he is in fact at work. I regret that I am unable to vary the existing arrangement, which, so far as unemployment benefit is concerned, has worked satisfactorily for the last seven years.

Oral Answers to Questions — HORBURY JUNCTION WAGON WORKS (STRIKE).

Mr. LUNN: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any representative of the Ministry has interviewed representatives of the workmen now on strike at Messrs. C. Roberts and Company, Limited, wagon works, Horbury Junction, since its commencement to ascertain their views as to the cause of the strike or how to bring" about a settlement; and, if not, will he meet a deputation from the workmen at the earliest possible date?

Sir R. HORNE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Officials of the Ministry of Labour have been dealing with the parties in the endeavour to settle this deplorable case, and the Parliamentary Secretary is meeting the parties to-day at Horbury.

Mr. LUNN: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will agree to the discharged soldiers and sailors thrown out of work through the strike at Messrs. Roberts and Company, wagon works, Horbury Junction, receiving unemployment, benefits from his Department, seeing they have no means of subsistence except through recourse to the Poor Law?

Sir R. HORNE: I understand that the men to whom the hon. Member refers are unemployed in consequence of a trade dispute at the premises at which they were employed. In these circumstances the rules under which unemployment benefit is granted prevent their receiving out-of-work donation during the continuance of the stoppage of work caused by the dispute.

The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. LUNN:

32. To ask the Minister of Labour whether letters have been received by his-Department from the workmen on strike at Messrs. C. Roberts and Company, Limited, wagon works, Horbury Junction, asking that a joint conference representative of the Ministry, the Discharged' Soldiers' and Sailors' Association, and the workmen on strike, should be arranged, with a view to arriving at a settlement of this dispute; and what steps have been taken by the Ministry in this direction?

Mr. LUNN: May I say that this question should have suggested the employers as part of the joint conference as well as-the others?

Sir R. HORNE: The answer to the question is in the negative, but I shall be glad to receive any information in the possession of my hon. Friend.

Mr. LUNN: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received information of meetings held last week wherein it was decided to send a joint representation to him asking that such a joint conference should be -called together as early as possible?

Sir R. HORNE: No letter has been sent to me to that effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT BY FARMERS).

Mr. A. SHORT: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that farmers in the Brailes and Cherington district are employing German prisoners from Brailes camp, although there are numbers of our own workmen in the district unemployed: and whether he can take any action in this matter?

Sir R. HORNE: There are standing instructions that no prisoners of war shall be employed, except in cases where suitable British civilian labour is not available. I will, however, have inquiries made into the circumstances in which prisoner labour is employed in the district referred to, and will let the hon. Member know the result in due course.

Captain W. BENN: Are we not under an obligation to send German prisoners back to their homes?

Sir R. HORNE: I believe there are such obligations connnected with the Peace Treaty—yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOROCCO (SPANISH ZONE).

Major C. LOWTHER: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much of the Spanish zone in Morocco as denned in the Franco-Spanish Treaty of Madrid of 27th November, 1912, is actually under Spanish control?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): His Majesty's Government have not the information to enable them to give an authoritative answer to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not possible for the hon. Gentleman to ascertain the information from His Majesty's representative in Tangier?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should think that would be possible, but we have not had sufficient notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO.

BRITISH INTERESTS.

Major LOWTHER: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the post of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the; Republic of Mexico is still vacant; and, if so, whether he can state the reason?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The reply to the first part of the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend is in the affirmative. As regards the second, His Majesty's Government are not prepared to consider making this appointment until they are satisfied that there is such an improvement in the attitude of the Mexican Government towards British interests as will justify a recognition of that Government.

Major LOWTHER: Is it a fact that there is already a Charge d'Affaires in Mexico?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, Sir; we have a diplomatic representative.

Major LOWTHER: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with a view to showing the desire of His Majesty's Government to maintain cordial relations with the smaller as well as the larger Spanish-American Republics, he will consider granting the local rank of Chargéd 'Affaires to the Consuls- General in Honduras and Nicaragua and the Consuls in Costa Rica and Salvador?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: According to the existing practice, His Majesty's Minister in Guatemala also holds the posts of Minister as well as Consul-General in Nicaragua, Honduras, and Salvador. His Majesty's Minister in Panama in like manner holds the posts of Minister and Consul-General in Costa Rica. The two latter posts are at present in abeyance, as His Majesty's Government have not recognised the present Government of Costa Rica.

Major LGWTHER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while we have a Minister in Cuba who looks after our interests in San Domingo, we have also a Chargéd' Affaires in Hayti and San Domingo, and is there any reason why these Republics should not be treated in the same way as the Republic: of San Domingo?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (HIGH COMMISSIONERS).

Mr. MOSLEY: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government is now paying the salaries of two High Commissioners of Egypt, and, if so, how long this practice will continue?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The salary of the High Commissioner for Egypt is not being paid twice over. Sir Reginald Wingate is drawing a proportion of the total provision for the post and is defraying certain expenses in Egypt. The Treasury have been asked to authorise the payment of the balance to Sir Edmund' Allenby, in addition to his Army pay and allowances as Commander-in-Chief, to meet his additional expenses as special High Commissioner while holding that appointment.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that Field-Marshal (Sir E. Allenby has received such a sum of money as would be the equivalent of the salary of the High Commissioner of Egypt at a time, say, last year?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that down.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (PRE-WAR REVENUE).

Mr. MOSLEY: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the average annual revenue derived from Palestine before the War; and what is the cost of British administration: in that country to-day?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As the pre-war Turkish Budgets do not show separately the revenues derived from all the administrative areas, it is not possible to state what was the average pre-war revenue for Palestine. The estimated collection for the Jerusalem Sanjak in 1911–12 was £ (Turkish) 312,452, but the amount estimated
invariably exceeded considerably the amount collected. Our estimated expenditure for the year 1918–19 for the administrative district known as occupied enemy territory south, which is coterminous with the former Turkish Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre, is £ (Egyptian) 738,649. Estimated receipts for the same period are £ (Egyptian) 661,813.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be decided who is to be the mandatory Power for Palestine?

Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATY.

GERMAN SHIPPING.

Sir F. HALL: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs if certain German shipping at Neufahrwasser and in the district adjacent to the mouth of the Vistula and Moltava has been nominally transferred by Germany to Holland; if, as the result of this action, when Poland takes possession of the Pomeranian coast she will find that it has been divested of all shipping; if such action is contrary to the provisions of the Peace Treaty; and what steps will be taken to put the matter right?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The facts of the case are these: There are some old and obsolete German warships lying at Neufahrwasser. The Germans have received permission from the Allied Naval Armistice Commission to sell two of these vessels, namely, the "Worth" and the "Hildebrand," to Dutch firms for breaking-up purposes. They have requested permission to sell five or six other old war vessels lying at the same port to Dutch firms for similar purposes, and this request is under consideration by the Allied Naval Armistice Commission.

ENEMY COUNTRIES.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 41.
asked when the Peace Treaties with the remaining enemy countries are likely to be concluded; and whether they will necessitate passing further Bills through the House?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As regards the first part of the question, I regret I am not at present in a position to say when the Peace Treaties with the remaining enemy countries will be concluded. Until
the provisions of the various Treaties are determined, it is impossible to say what legislation they will involve.

HOSTILE AIR RAIDS (CLAIMS).

Lieut.-Col. ASSHETON POWNALL: 52.
asked the Prime Minister what action should be taken by the dependants of those killed in hostile air raids in order that their claims may be submitted to and settled by Germany, as provided by Article 232 of the Treaty of Peace?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Applicants should send in particulars of their claims to the Foreign Claims Office, Foreign Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALBANIA.

Lieut.-Colonel A. HERBERT: 40.
asked what experts have been consulted with regard to the delimitation of the frontiers of Albania?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am unable to give the hon. and gallant Member the information he asks for, but the Peace Conference have at their disposal the best expert advice on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — "THE RECONQUEST OF AMERICA."

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to an anti-British pamphlet, entitled, "The Re-conquest of America," published by Gordon Brown and Company, New York, and distributed broadcast; and will he say if any, and, if so, what steps are being taken to counteract such forms of propaganda in view of their effect on the relations which exist between the two great English-speaking nations?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is unknown how widely the pamphlet may have been distributed, but in any case no steps seem necessary to counteract what is evidently intended to be a humorous production.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the letter contained in this pamphlet, alleged to have been addressed to the Prime Minister, is quite obviously a falsification, and that the statements contained in the letter are to the meanest intelligence quite untrue?

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN RAILWAYS (RATES AND FARES).

Mr. GILBERT: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether passenger fares or goods rates on railways- have been increased since 1914 in France,. Holland, Italy, and Belgium; and, if so, can he state what the increases have been and from what dates they have been effective?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information as to a general increase in passenger fares or goods rates in France, Holland, and Belgium. On 11th January, 1917, the price of ordinary railway tickets in Italy was increased by 20 per cent. and of season tickets by 25 per cent. On 10th December, 1917, the prices were further increased by 50 per cent. for first- and second-class and 30 per cent, for third-class tickets, both ordinary and season.

Oral Answers to Questions — UKRAINE.

Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the alleged wholesale massacres. of the dwellers in the cities of the Ukraine by the bandit Zelini; and whether any measures are being taken to arrest the mischievous propaganda which he and his followers are said to be spreading through out that country?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question asked by the hon. Member is that His Majesty's Government are not in possession of any official information on the subject of the activities of Zelini. As regards the second part of the question, the answer is in the negative in so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

EX-GERMAN AND EX-OTTOMAN TERRITORIES.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what arrangements are being made to recruit the permanent Civil Service for ex-German and ex-Ottoman territories for which this country is to- become responsible as mandatory of the League of Nations?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): Until the final decision is taken with regard to the mandates of the League of Nations, temporary administration is being carried on by officers of the Colonial Services concerned. I am informed that the Foreign Office is collecting the names and particulars of candidates "who are likely to prove suitable when a decision has been come to.

Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept as candidates disabled officers from the Indian Army who are specially qualified for these posts?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that is necessary, but I shall call the attention of the Foreign Office to that matter. I am sure, however, they will attend to it on their own initiative.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS (CLUBS).

Major COPE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he is now able to state when the restrictions respecting the sale of alcoholic drinks imposed on clubs as a temporary war measure will be removed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to previous replies to questions on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CONDITIONS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. WARREN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the manner in which many municipal councils have loyally adopted the suggestions of His Majesty's Government and increased the wages of its workmen and the salaries of its teachers and officials, thereby placing a burden upon the ratepayers, which is now as heavy as they can bear, the Government will institute an immediate inquiry into the economic and financial conditions of the country, with a view to allaying the unrest and discontent that prevails, and in the hope that ameliorative measures may result?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid that the difficulties referred to in the question are by no means limited to municipal councils. The whole situation is engaging the close attention of His Majesty's Government, but I doubt
whether a general inquiry of the kind suggested would serve any useful purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AIR DIVISION (NAVAL STAFF).

Mr. RAPER: 48.
asked the Prim Minister for what purpose the Air Department of the Admiralty is maintained?

Mr. LONG: I have been asked to answer this question. I would repeat the reply which I gave on the 31st July to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Twickenham Division, that there is no Air Department at the Admiralty. There is an Air Division of the Naval Staff, which advises as to air operations affecting Royal Air Force units working with the Fleet. This division is manned by Royal Air Force officers lent by the Air Ministry. I might add that this arrangement was made to meet war conditions, and the question of the best means of securing the necessary close co-operation in peace-time is at present being considered by the two Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-KAISER (TRIAL).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement on behalf of the Government to the effect that it has not been definitely decided whether the ex-Kaiser's trial will take place in London; and whether this statement is intended to supersede his own declaration that it was the unanimous decision of the Allies that such trial should take place in London?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Allies have not altered their decision in regard to this matter, but no action can be taken until the Treaty has been ratified.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTTISH BUSINESS.

Mr. G. MURRAY: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that Scottish business is invariably taken on days inconvenient to Scottish Members and that insufficient time is allotted, he will consider the desirability, pending the establishment of devolution, of remitting all Scottish business to the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I thing my hon. Friend exaggerates the position in the first part of his question, and in any case, as he is aware, it is not the Government but the Opposition which selects the subjects to be taken on Supply days.

Oral Answers to Questions — VATICAN (BRITISH MISSION).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has yet been reached as to the continuance of the British Mission to the Vatican; and whether, in considering the question, the Cabinet hare borne in mind the value that the Mission has been during the War and the disadvantage that will result if, whilst other great Powers are diplomatically represented at the Vatican, the United Kingdom is deprived of an official representative, in spite of the large Roman Catholic population of the British Empire and the political interests that are involved, particularly in Ireland, Australia, and the United States of America?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have not yet come to a decision on this subject.

Sir S. HOARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make an announcement before the Recess?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can hardly promise that. But my hon. Friend knows that there is no hurry, for the existing arrangement continues until the War is over.

Oral Answers to Questions — POET LAUREATE.

Sir ERNEST WILD: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether the office of Poet Laureate is a life appointment irrespective of inspiration and intellectual output?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The office of Poet Laureate is a life appointment.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: Who is the Poet Laureate?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Does my right hon. Friend not know.

Mr. LAMBERT: No.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Mr. Bridges.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Does this office carry any obligation to write poems?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think not! Of all possible obligations that would have been the most unreasonable.

Sir E. WILD: Is this salaried office a silent sinecure?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

PRE-WAR PENSIONS.

Mr. CLOUGH: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the more generous treatment in regard to pensions which is being given to those who have served in the recent War, he will consider the claim to more generous treatment of those soldiers who have fought in previous wars in which this country has been engaged, notably the South African war, and who have now great difficulty in managing to exist?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer, on the 7th ultimo, to the hon. and gallant Member for East Fife, to which I have nothing at present to add.

WAR GRATUITIES.

Major COPE: 63.
asked if, in view of the fact that the Government has the use of large sums of money owing to the delay in the payment of war gratuities, he will advise that these gratuities should be paid with interest at the rate of 5 per cent. from the date the receipt of the clearance certificate is acknowledged by the War Office to the date the gratuity is actually paid; and, if not, will he state his reasons for coming to this decision?

Mr. FORSTER: As already announced, all war gratuities are now about to be paid, and special steps have been taken to secure that there is no avoidable delay. In the circumstances, it is not considered necessary to introduce any system of paying interest for the time occupied by the Agents in making payment, as the complications so caused would themselves retard the payments.

SEPARATION ALLOWANCE (UNMARRIED WIFE).

Mr. RENDALL: 76.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will grant a Return showing how many unmarried separation allowances were
drawn by women unable to marry by reason of the man or woman or the illegal union having a legal spouse alive?

Mr. FORSTER: The documents supporting a claim for separation allowance for an unmarried wife do not always show whether the parties to the claim were married or single. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to give this Return.

Sir F. BANBURY: Will my right hon. Friend see that allowances are not given to any man for more than one wife?

Mr. FORSTER: We ensure that as far as we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — MARRIAGE LEGISLATION.

Mr. RENDALL: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intends to promote legislation to allow the vast body of judicially or mutually separated married persons in the country to remarry and have legitimate children?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERMINATION OF WAR DEFINITION ACT.

Captain W. BENN: 57.
asked the Lord Privy Seal, whether he can state when it is intended officially to declare the War to be over; and whether he can make a statement as to the repeal of the Defence of the Realm Act?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Termination of the War Definition Act can only be brought into force as near as may foe simultaneously with the Ratifications of Peace, and the Defence of the Realm Regulations, unless extended by a special Statute, will come to an end.

Captain BENN: Is it necessary to wait until all the belligerent Powers have ratified the Treaty before it is possible to put a definition of the "end of the War" into being?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is necessary to wait until all the Treaties have been ratified, and until we have the ratification.

Captain BENN: Will the Defence of the Realm Act continue until twenty-five belligerents have had opportunity separately to ratifiy the Peace Treaty?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, no. As regards the Treaty with Germany it was arranged that whenever it is ratified by three Powers it will come into force. What were the arrangements with the others I cannot now say.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIR HENRY WILSON'S FORECAST.

Sir F. HALL: 59.
asked what action was taken toy the Government after the expression of opinion advanced at Versailles in January, 1918, by Sir Henry Wilson, in the presence of the Prime Minister, that the Germans would probably concentrate 100 divisions opposite the British front, on the left of the French line, with the object of severing the British and French armies; what was the total strength of the British 5th Army then opposite the German line in this sector of front and the strength of the Germans opposed to them; what was the relative strength of the two forces at the time of the German attack in March, 1918; whether the course of the campaign foreseen by Sir Henry Wilson was discussed by him at any time with General Gough; whether General Gough was given such reinforcements as he considered necessary to enable him to resist this anticipated mass attack by the Germans; and, if not, whether, in view of the fact that the Cabinet had already been informed of the probable course of events, he will now state the grounds on which General Gough was relieved of his command, in consequence of a disaster due to the failure to take the necessary measures to strengthen his Army which were called for by Sir Henry Wilson's forecast of events?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is impossible that the many extremely interesting and highly controversial issues raised in the question of my hon. and gallant Friend could be dealt with by question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY APPRENTICES (TRAINING).

Captain BOWYER: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the results and experience so far obtained justify a demand that the general and technical education of apprentices and others similar to that at present carried on in the Army at Home and abroad, especially in the Army of the Rhine, should form
part of the regular training of the postwar Army; and, if so, what steps are being taken to gave practical effect to the experience already gained?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my replies yesterday to questions on this subject by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardine and Western.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

WOMEN'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS.

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES: 62.
asked whether the women telegraphists who joined up in the Queen. Mary's Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, and who served overseas are being refused the war gratuity on demobilisation; whether, having regard to the greatly increased cost of all articles of clothing which have to be purchased on demobilisation, and in view of the necessity for approximately equal treatment, he will reconsider the question so far as the members of the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps are concerned; and whether he is able to state the War Office decision as to the future rate of pay of the women who have been retained with the Army of Occupation?

Mr. FORSTER: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member on the 16th July last.

226th DIVISION EMPLOYMENT CAMP (PRIVATE CLARK).

Mr. TICKLER: 68.
asked the Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private Clark, No. 610981, 226th Division Employment Camp, British Army of the Rhine; whether he is aware that this soldier's father is seventy years old and incapable of doing any work for himself and that he mother is a chronic invalid, both parents being in distress on account of this soldier's continued service with the forces; whether he is aware that this man endeavoured to enlist in 1914 and 1915 but was rejected on medical grounds, but that in spite of the circumstances in this man's favour he has been refused demobilisation for the reason that he case is not considered to come within the grounds of extreme compassion; and whether he will give sympathetic consideration to the request for Private Clark's immediate release?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no trace of any application having been received by the War Office on behalf of Private Clark. The application referred to by my hon. Friend was apparently made to the man's commanding officer, who is in possession of all instructions regarding demobilisation, and I am confident that this 6oldier's release would not have been refused had his case fallen within any of the categories prescribed in the instructions governing releases on such grounds. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to reconsider the decision. If, however, this soldier is eligible under the conditions of the Memorandum recently published he will be released accordingly.

ENLISTMENT UNDER AGE.

Mr. CAIRNS: 71.
asked the Secretary for War if he is aware that Driver E. Hunter, No. 296561, G Sub-section, 2nd Battery, Royal Field Artillery, Fenham Barracks, Newcastle-on-Tyne, enlisted, and is not seventeen years of age, and enlisted against his mother's wish?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Inquiries are being made, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result in due course.

ARMY IN INDIA.

Mr. CAREW: 72.
asked whether the 1st/4th Devons, who were sent out to India at the outbreak of the War, are now being split up into email parties and attached to other regiments; and whether this may unduly delay their return home, which has been so long promised?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The cadre of this battalion is on its way home. Such personnel as were liable to be retained under existing Army Orders will have been transferred to other units, but it is not considered that this will unduly delay their return home. I would also refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman now say whether these men are now being sent to the Afghan frontier?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I cannot. We are endeavouring to release these men as fast as possible. Battalions are going out every week to relieve these men, but, meanwhile, the position on the Indian frontier is such as to call for a large force, and the Indian authorities must have full
latitude to deal with these troops until they can be replaced to the best possible advantage.

Mr. CLOUGH: 73.
asked whether there are still in India any officers and men who, prior to 30th April last, had been certified by medical boards as unfit to remain in the country; and, if so, can their return be expedited?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In March, 1919, there were 6,463 unfit men and 215 officers recommended on medical grounds for repatriation before the hot weather. Of the men 5,500 were sent home and the remaining 963 unfit, taken from the least urgent cases in order of medical priority, were sent up to the hill stations. In April, on a further reduction of the garrison of India, most of these' remaining cases were sent home. It is possible on account of the recent outbreak that some of these men may have had to be retained, but they have been in excellent climates in the hill stations.

IRISH SOLDIERS.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 75.
asked whether, now that peace has been ratified, men who enlisted voluntarily in Ireland during the years 1916, 1917, and 1918 for the duration of the War may immediately be released from military service?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I promised yesterday, I will consider the cases to which my hon. and gallant Friend has drawn attention.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: As compulsory service never came into force in Ireland, does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the case of these men is entirely different to that of the men who joined at corresponding dates in this country under the threat of Conscription; and, in view of the present state of Ireland, does he think it wise to break the bond on the strength of which these men joined and leave them with a sense of a burning grievance?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the fact that public pledges were given in this House, and also by advertisements circulated in every part of Ireland that these men would be demobilised immediately upon the cessation of hostilities?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I agree. I think they are in a different category, and they are at least in as good a position as the
Derby men. I will go into the matter to see if anything can be done. The difficulties are enormous at the present time in dealing with these questions in the many emergencies which present themselves in our various theatres.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME SERVICE (MEDALS AND DECORATIONS).

Colon I BURN: 64.
asked if it is intended to give a medal to those officers and non commissioned officers who came to their country's aid and gave all their spare time to training troops at home during the War?

Mr. SUGDEN: 69.
asked what type of decoration is to be given to those men who volunteered for active service during the War, but who, by reason of medical incapacity, were allowed only home service, and so served—this in respect of both officers and men?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friends to the answers which I gave yesterday to questions on this subject. The matter is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST YORKSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE RYDER).

Major E. WOOD: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances attending the death by suicide on the 14th July, 1919, of Private E. H. Ryder, No. 236959, West Yorkshire Regiment, attached 474th Agricultural Company, Labour Corps; whether application for this man's release on the compassionate ground that his wife was dying of consumption was repeatedly made, and refused; and whether, in view of the strong local feeling that his death was in great measure attributable to this refusal, he will cause an immediate inquiry to be made into all the circum stances?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Inquiries will be made in this case, and my hon. and gallant Friend informed of the result as early as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY LEAVE.

Mr. ROBINSON: 66.
asked whether, in view of the shortage of labour in agricultural districts, special leave will be granted
to soldier agricultural labourers upon application being made for their services by their previous employers and others?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The question of granting leave for the purpose of collecting the harvest is now under consideration. All commands at home have been notified that paragraph 59 of the King's Regulations may be observed, and that soldiers may be employed in harvest work provided their employment is in the locality in which they are stationed and that their duties are not thereby interfered with.

Sir J. D. REES: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private H. Jacklin, No. 27120, 1/5th Royal West Kent Regiment, Poona, India, has served in Mesopotamia and India nearly three years, and has had no leave since joining in 1916 under Lord Derby's scheme, though others in his regiment who joined twelve months later have been demobilised; and whether Private Jacklin can now be released and restored to his business, which awaits him?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Memorandum recently published, in which it states that all Derby men who joined the Colours before 1st July, 1916, who are in India, will have started for home by the 1st December, if not released earlier, provided always that no unexpected trouble occurs in that country. I gather, however, that Private Jacklin is the owner of a one-man business, and his case may therefore come within the recent instructions for the release of such men. If he is not entitled to release as a Derby man, his case can be considered on business grounds if my hon. Friend will submit the necessary certified statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — ULSTER VOLUNTEERS (RIFLES).

Mr. MacVEAGH: 70.
asked whether the rifles and ammunition of the Ulster Volunteers are in military custody; whether it was made a condition of surrendering them that they should not be removed from Ulster; whether, in fact, they are still in Ulster; what position is now held in the British Army in Ulster by General Hacket Paine; and what position was held by the same gentleman in the Ulster Volunteer organisation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirma-
tive, and to the second part in the negative. It is not considered to be in. the public interest to state where arms are stored. As regards the last part of the question, Brigadier-General Sir G. W. Hacket Paine is in command of the Northern District in the Irish Command.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE (LONDON AND PARIS).

Lieut. Colonel W. GUINNESS: 74.
asked now many telephone lines between London and Paris are now monopolised by the War Office and Air Force, and how many telephone conversations take place daily on an average; and whether he can say at what date these telephone facilities will be restricted so as to enable lines again to be used for business purposes?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is one direct line to Paris from the War Office, and this is fitted on a small switchboard, for the use of a limited number of extensions, which are connected up with it. This is the only line to Paris monopolised by the War Office. There is no line reserved entirely for the Air Force. Other calls are passed over lines which are used in common with other Government Departments, and average about twenty-five per day in the case of the War Office and twenty per day in the case of the Air Ministry.

Lieut-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House has been told by the Postmaster-General that there are ten telephone lines monopolised by the Government, and are we to understand that although the War Office only monopolise one line it also makes use of a good many of the other facilities; and in view of the grave need of the public telephone to Paris will the right hon. Gentleman see whether some of this business cannot be done by post?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have already said that, apart from the private line from the War Office to Paris, there are, on an average, only about twenty-five messages a day from the War Office and twenty from the Air Force. If there axe ten lines in existence, it would mean that forty-five messages a day pass over ten lines and that would be only four messages per line, and that does not look like a monopoly of those lines.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: In view of the attitude of the Postmaster-General, will the right hon. Gentleman inform that Minister that the War Office do not need more than one line?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I could not undertake to substitute correspondence for the use of the telephone.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the War Office limited to three minute calls over this wire?

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (ASSISTANT INSPECTORS OF FISHERIES).

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 77.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in. view of the fact that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are advertising vacancies as assistant inspectors of fisheries at a commencing salary of £150 per annum and were un able or unwilling to advertise a vacancy as chief inspector of fisheries at £l,000 per annum, the instruction of the President of the 25th February last with reference to the advertisement of vacancies as inspectors only applies to the poorer paid appointments at the fisheries branch of the Board?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): No, Sir. The instruction of the President of the 25th February last applies to all appointments to the permanent staff of the Board without regard to the salaries attaching to them.

Major E. WOOD: Is my hon. Friend aware that considerable feeling has been caused in different parts of the country by the appointment of quite unsuitable men to posts under the Board?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have not heard of that.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 78.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what is the amount of war bonus payable to assistant inspectors of fisheries is receipt of a salary of £150 per annum; and whether, in view of the fact that the weekly wage of stokers and sea men in coastal steamers is fixed by the National Maritime Board at £3 17s. 6d., the Board consider that such a salary is a reasonable one for an assistant inspector of fisheries?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The amount of war bonus payable to assistant inspectors for fishery business entering at the initial salary of £150 is £92 12s. per annum. The scale of salary authorised by the Treasury for the posts in question is £150 rising by annual increments of £10 to £250 per annum, plus war bonus. Travelling and subsistence allowances on the usual scales are also payable. The question of the improvement of the position of assistant inspectors is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — WANDSWORTH ALLOTMENT- HOLDERS (NOTICE TO QUIT).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 79.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his Department has given ten days' notice to allotment-holders at Union Road and Clapham Road, Wandsworth, to quit their holdings; whether this land is stated to be required for the erection of a laundry; whether he is aware that if these notices take effect £350 worth of foodstuffs will be lost; whether the erection of a laundry is of greater national importance at this time than the production of food; why the Wandsworth Borough Council did not issue the notices to quit seeing the council was in session on 30th July, the date when the notices were issued by the Board; and whether, in view of the hardship which will fall on these holders, the need for saving this food to the, community, and the appeals made by the Prime Minister and the Food Controller for increased production, he will secure that these holders are allowed to remain till the end of the present season at least?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Notices, dated 30th ult., and expiring on the 11th inst., have been issued by the Board to certain allotment-holders on the land referred to which is required for the immediate erection of a laundry, which is to cost £50,000, and to employ 150 people. The Board made every effort compatible with national economy to defer relinquishment of possession as long as possible. The builders were anxious to commence before the plans had been passed, and were prepared to take any risk in so doing in order to take full advantage of the long hours and fine weather. The Board would not agree to give up the land until the 12th inst., which is as far as the Department could go without incurring a heavy risk of liability
to pay the lessors, lessees, and the builders, very substantial sums in compensation. The Board were advised on the 27th ult. that the cultivation committee of the local authority would not meet again until October, and, in view of the urgency of the matter, the notices in question were served under the Seal of the Board. I regret the necessity of disturbing the allotment-holders, but, on the other hand, the Board are not prepared to pay large subsidies from public funds where allotment-holders cannot otherwise be maintained secure in their holdings. The allotment-holders will receive full compensation for their crops and labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — HULL CITY HALL.

Major ENTWISTLE: 80.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the City Hall at Hull is still retained by the Government; that this hall is essential for the social and artistic life of the city; that there is great and growing dissatisfaction in the city at its continued retention; that he promised some months ago that he would release it as early as possible; and that there is other suitable accommodation for the purposes it is at present being used for; and whether he will give immediate instructions for its restoration to the city?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The answer to the first, second, and fourth parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the third and fifth parts, every endeavour has been, and is being, made to obtain other suitable accommodation, but hitherto without success, and until such accommodation has been found the answer to the last part must be in the negative. If the corporation can suggest any suitable alternative I shall, of course, be very willing to consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRADFORD WOOL TEXTILE PRODUCTION COMMITTEE.

Mr. WATERSON: 81.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that an order given by the Co-operative Wholesale Society on 11th October, 1918, was refused by the Wool Textile Produc-
tion Committee at Bradford and passed on to the Standard Cloth (Worsted) Committee; can he state whether this Committee is now in a position to fulfil the order; is he aware that the substitute for the cloth that was released on the understanding that a similar material would be issued is of an inferior quality; and will he prosecute inquiries as to this breach of faith which is a detriment to the firm concerned?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to answer this question. I am unable to trace the transactions referred to by my hon. Friend. If he will give me more definite details I will have inquiries made.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN GLOVES (EXPORTS).

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER - SHEE: 82.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the importation of gloves manufactured in Germany is now prohibited?

Sir A. QEDDES: Leather gloves, for which a general licence has been issued, may new be imported from Germany without restriction; fabric gloves may not be imported without individual licences, and it is not at present proposed that such licences should be given.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some assurance that those provisions will be maintained for some time, or that alternatively some form of protection shall be given to the home manufacturer to enable him to supply these articles?

Sir A. GEDDES: The general statement on Trade Policy to be made, I hope before the House rises, will supply an answer to that question.

Captain W. BENN: Why forbid Germany to send these articles considering the high prices?

Sir A. GEDDES: I said leather gloves could be imported, but not fabric gloves.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there would be considerable opposition to the policy adumbrated by the hon. and gallant Member opposite?

Oral Answers to Questions — LIVERPOOL POLICE STRIKE.

HOME SECRETARY'S STATEMENT.

Mr. S. ROBINSON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he was aware that attempts were being made by irresponsible persons to bring about a complete stoppage of all work in Liverpool?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): No material change in the position in Liverpool has taken place, and no more police have joined the strikers. One or two attempts at looting were made last night, but were immediately suppressed. There are threats of other strikes which would affect the essential needs of the community. I am well aware that certain persons are attempting to bring about a complete stoppage of work, without any thought of the suffering involved, and to hand over the city to the mercies of the criminal classes. They are far from being irresponsible persons. Fortunately, up to the present they have failed, and the Government have every confidence that the authorities in Liverpool will take every step, however severe, to preserve law and order. To prevent such unwarrantable ani3 sinister attacks, the Government are prepared to render every assistance to the Liverpool authorities.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for five days previous to yesterday, in open daylight, wholesale looting was going on, handcarts were brought up, hammers were used to break windows, and goods were taken away and strewed all over the streets, without anybody interfering with the looters? Are the forces at the command of the Government unable to prevent that kind of thing being continued?

Mr. SHORTT: I do not think it is quits correct to say that no one interfered. The mob did get control for a considerable time, but as quickly as possible the military were sent up to the assistance of the local authorities. A battleship and two destroyers are there to render assistance, and every further step that is necessary will be taken to conquer the mob and to bring peace about again.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that previous to that the streets of the city were occupied by men with deliberately lawless objects without any interference from anybody at all?

Mr. SHORTT: Interference did take place as soon as possible. I am quite well aware that the people at the back of this got hold of the criminal classes—the worst classes—and brought them to their assistance, but every step has Been taken to restore law and order.

Mr. REMER: Was any attempt made to burn any of the docks?

Mr. SHORTT: I am told there were such attempts, but they were fortunately defeated.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the vast majority of law-abiding citizens in this country expect the Government to arrest the fomenters of this agitation?

Mr. SHORTT: I do not suppose they expect the Government to arrest anyone who has not broken the letter of the law.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the Government start with their own supporters?

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFITEERING PREVENTION.

GOVERNMENT BILL.

Sir D. MACLEAN: In view of the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade to the Committee on Profiteering, intimating that it is the intention of the Government to bring in. a Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House on what day he proposes to bring in that Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir, notice of the presentation of the Bill will be handed in to-day, and it will be taken as soon as possible.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the Bill be passed before the House rises for the holidays?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, we must pass it.

Mr. HOLMES: May I inquire why the Government asked a fortnight ago for the appointment of this Select Committee to inquire into profiteering and why the Food Controller eat as a witness all day yesterday if they felt in a position to introduce legislation without waiting for the Report of the Committee?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can assure the House no slight is intended to the Committee. At the time I announced its formation I said that at the same time the Government were considering what steps
they should themselves take in the meantime. As a matter of fact, I believe my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has seen this Committee in regard to the proposals which the Government are going to make.

Mr. HOLMES: Did the Food Controller know yesterday, when he was a witness, that legislation was going to be announced to the Committee by the President of the Board of Trade to-day?

Mr. BONAR LAW: He knew the Government were considering the question, but did not know we had decided to do it.

Mr. CLYNES: Is the Bill an attempt to amend the existing law, or is it intended to provide a different law for profiteering?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it would be inadvisable to attempt now to describe the Bill, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will wait until he sees it. It is an attempt to deal in a very drastic way with this difficulty.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOLAND'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with Minutes of Proceedings; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the third time.

Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading, of Boland's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in the case, be returned to the House of Lords.—[Sir Henry Craik.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].

Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 170.]

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to He upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 161.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 161.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

Local Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill [Lords]; Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 171.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

War Loan Bill, without Amendment.

Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill,

Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill, Sheffield Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to disqualifications on account of sex." [Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill Lords.]

That they have agreed to—

Amendments to—

Stockton-on-Tees Corporation Bill [Lords],

Nuneaton Corporation Bill [Lords],

Poole Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 172.]

BILL PRESENTED.

RATS AND MICE (DESTRUCTION) BILL,—

"to make further provision for the destruction of Rats and Mice," presented by Sir Arthur BOSCAWEN; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]

Orders of the Day — SEA, LAND, AND AIR WAR SERVICES.

PRIME MINISTER'S TRIBUTE.

MONEY GRANTS BY PARLIAMENT.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move,
"That the thanks of this House be accorded to the officers, warrant officers, petty officers, and men of the Navy and of the Royal Marines for their sleepless watch over the seas and for the courage, resource, and devotion with which,-during four years of constant peril, they have maintained the blockade of the enemy's coast, convoyed Armies drawn from the most distant lands, and defended the commerce of the civilised world against the craft and subtlety of a lawless foe:
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Armies in the field for the matchless valour and endurance with which, amid circumstances of unexampled hardship, they have sustained the shock of war in many climes, for the good humour, clemency, and patience of their bearing, and for the undaunted spirit which has carried them through four years of strenuous toil to a complete and splendid victory:
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Air Force for their brilliant, daring and conspicuous services over sea and land:
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the gallant troops from the Dominions overseas, from India, and from the Colonies and Protectorates, for the promptitude with which they responded to the call of justice and freedom, and for the noble part that they have played in conjunction with their comrades of the British Isles, in securing the triumph of right over wrong:
That the thanks of this House be accorded to those subjects of His Majesty who, inspired by the greatness of the issue, voyaged from foreign lands to offer their lives in the service of their country:
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the members of the Royal Army Medical Corps and of the Indian Medical Service for the skilful discharge of their humane office, and for the unprecedented success which attended their unremitting labours to preserve the armed Forces of the Crown from the ravages of disease:
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the women of the medical and other auxiliary services for their devotion in tending the sick and wounded as for other duties faithfully and bravely discharged:
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine for the fine and fearless seamanship by which our people have been preserved from want and our cause from disaster:
That this House doth acknowledge with deep submission and reverence the heroism of those who have fallen in the service of the country and tenders its sympathy to their relatives in the hour of their sorrow and their pride:
That Mr. Speaker do signify the said Resolutions to the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral, and to the Army Council, and to His Majesty's Secretaries of State for India and for the Colonial Department, and to the President of the Board of Trade to communicate the same to the officers and men referred to therein."
While I assume that the two Resolutions standing in my name will be put separately from the Chair, I hope the House will permit me to make observations which will cover both. About a year or two ago it was my privilege to stand at this box to move a Vote of Thanks to the fighting Forces of the Crown for their services in the Great War. I then had to cover a good deal of ground, distinguishing not merely the various Services, but the various branches of the Services. I, therefore, hope that it will be unnecessary for me to travel the same ground to-day. With regard to the Resolution of Thanks which it is proposed to give to the great soldier who commanded the Allied Forces on the Western Front, I am sure the House will be glad to have an opportunity of expressing its gratitude for the first time to that great leader. In a War where many have won high renown in the field, his genius, by general recognition of friend and foe, is the most
shining, and his fame the most towering. The War would have been won by the valour, the endurance, and the resources of the Allies without Marshal Foch's leadership, but I am profoundly convinced that it would not have been won in 1918 without it. What that means to the world it is difficult to calculate. It is difficult enough to rebuild the structure after four years of shattering war. What would have happened had there been another year or another two years of casualties, of loss, of destruction, of anxiety, and of unrest no one can depict. From all those dark possibilities we were saved by the genius of Marshal Foch, and the gratitude of this people, as well as of all the civilised nations of the world, ought to go out to him. I, therefore, count it a great privilege to move that the thanks of the House be given to Field-Marshal Foch for his services to the Allied cause.
I have to move the Vote of Thanks to the gallant men and the devoted women who have served the Allied cause for the last four or five years. Five years ago to this week this country was called upon to make the greatest decision in its history. A harsh and cruel challenge rang out suddenly, almost without warning—a challenge to the nobility of our race. It was one of those challenges that no nation could disregard without forfeiting its honour, and without loss of its self-respect. If we had not responded to that challenge in the true spirit we might have waxed gross on the sacrifices of other and nobler races than we would have proved. We would, indeed, have become a prosperous people, but a despised people. The answer was worthy of this great country and of this great Empire. Let me say here, in passing, that we owe thanks to those who at that time were the national leaders in reaching that decision for saving this land from that shame—I mean Mr. Asquith and Sir Edward Grey. What happened on that date? On the 1st August, 1914, we were, by common assumption, the most unwarlike people in Europe. There was some ground for that assumption. On the Continent of Europe every male, from the moment he arrived at years of intelligence, contemplated the horrors of war as part of the destiny through which he might have to pass in life. His fathers had gone through it for generations almost without a break. When they arrived at
a certain year they had served an apprenticeship in war. For two years they practised war—how to handle rifles and machine-guns and cannon, and how to face rifles and machine-guns and cannon.
4.0 P.M.
Their minds for two or three years were concentrated on that problem. For years after that they were brought up, year after year, for something like mimic warfare, which reminded them of what might be in store for them any day. The slightest diplomatic cloud on the horizon was regarded by them as something that might develop into a storm which would break upon their heads and upon their homes. That was the Continent of Europe.
But here war was as remote a contingency from the men of the 1st August, 1914, as anything could be, for a country which for hundreds of years had not seen war on its shores. What war meant for men of British birth was that, at the worst that could happen, those who had chosen war as a profession might be engaged. Then came a great change. On the 4th August the challenge was made to the chivalry of our people, and what followed is one of the most remarkable incidents in history. Millions of men of the type I have described. who never thought of war, suddenly rallied to the Flag. They rallied in such numbers that even a great manufacturing country like ours could not manufacture the necessary weapons of war for them to handle or to train themselves with. It was one of the most thrilling and inspiring episodes in the history of the world, and that episode will always be honourably associated with the great name of Lord Kitchener. Men so brought up, men with such a peaceful outlook on life, men with such a training, when the hour of battle came, whether on field or on flood, behaved with a gallantry, a valour, and a dauntlessness that ranks them with the iron Infantry of Marlborough and Wellington, and on sea with the daring seamen of Drake.
I doubt whether in the history of war such multitudes of men have ever displayed such sustained courage. Has there ever been such a strain upon courage as in this War? In the old wars there were great (battles fought—one, two, three—not many, in the course of a campaign. There were great intervals either of rest or of marching, at any rate of relaxation, from the great strain upon human nerve. There was
hardly any here. The peril was in the battle and the peril was in the billets. There were long-range guns, and bombing even in rest camps. The strain was ever present upon the nerves of these gallant men. War has never witnessed such a trial of manhood, and British soldiers and British seamen stood it to the last. What is true of the battlefield is equally true of the sea. It is difficult for us to estimate the constant strain upon the courage of our seamen. There is a letter from Collingwood, written when the was outside Toulon blockading that port. He was talking of the weather, and of the vigilance that was required. He said:
Every one of the blasts we are enduring lessens the security of the country. The last cruise disabled five large ships, and two more lately. Several of them must be docked. I have hardly known what a night of rest is these two months. This incessant cruising seems to me beyond the powers of human nature. Calder is worn to a shadow and quite broken down, and I am told that Graves is not much better.
That was for two months! The incessant cruising of this War was not for two months, not for two years, but even longer. In those days the enemy was visible; here the enemy was hidden. There the enemy could be seen approaching; here the enemy was underneath, and out of sight. The mined areas covered huge tracts of sea. There were ships that knew, when they sailed or steamed through areas which were not supposed to be mined, that, perhaps a quarter of an hour before they arrived there, mines had been laid along that track, with disastrous effects upon their craft. This is the strain which our sailors of the Navy bore.
As to our sailors of the Mercantile Marine, they faced horrors often worse than those of the battlefield. A ship torpedoed, perhaps scores of miles from any shore, in rough weather, with frail boats and no time to stock the boats—the cruel waves, like beasts of prey, playing with their victims before devouring them; and often they were spared for a worse fate—the incredible torture of hunger and thirst. No wonder that 15,000 of them fell victims to the cruellest and most dastardly piracy ever perpetrated on the high seas. But, as His Majesty the King said the other day, it is noteworthy that the survivors, after they escaped, "never failed to return to the same perilous duties." They knew that the fate of the Allied cause depended on their faithfulness, even unto death. We owe them thanks, and it ought to be the pride
of the House that represents the people of this land to accord it them. Everywhere on land, on sea, in the air, the strain on the heart, the nerve, the will, the courage of men has been beyond anything ever described in the story of this world. It is a matter of just boast to us as a people that in such a trial Britain fought better in the last year of the War than she ever fought before—put forth greater strength, displayed greater daring and endurance; her blows were more vigorous, more mighty, more shattering, more terrible in their effect, than ever before.
I, therefore, move that Vote of Thanks to these gallant men to whom we owe so much. And we should not forget the women—those who in great peril nursed the wounded, and saved thousands of lives by their tender care, and the women of the other Auxiliary Services whose aid was invaluable in enabling the soldiers to carry through their terrible duty.
I am not going to particularise branches of the Service, nor to attempt to summarise their achievements. They are too well known. They are written deep on the hearts of the people of this country. I will only just refer to two or three matters to which, I think, I should fail in my duty if I did not call attention before I sit down. The first is the debt we owe to the Dominions and the Dependencies of the Empire for the timely, effective, and powerful aid they rendered. As to the Dominions, you have only to peruse the list of the victories won by the gallant troops who came from overseas—a truly dazzling list—in order to realise the greatness of the share which they have in the happy issue of the War. I am sure we rejoice as much here as they do that the Dominions, through the valour of their sons, have won a permanent place in the fraternity of nations. As to India, by her remarkable contribution to our triumph, notably in the East, she has won a new claim to our consideration, a claim so irresistible that it ought to overpower, and must overpower, all prejudice and timidity which may stand in the way of her progress.
This is the Motion of Thanks to the fighting Services. But I must mention two other classes. First of all, there are the workers to whose skill and industry we owe the celerity, the efficiency, and the completeness with which our Armies were equipped. Never has the skill of our experts—of the leaders and organisers of
industry and of our mechanics—been shown to as great advantage. There is one word I should like to say about them, and it is well now to recall it. These skilled mechanics volunteered in such numbers that it was the first duty of those who were to undertake the organisation and equipment for the Army to bring back as many as they possibly could. That was true in the ship building trade, and in the engineering trade; it was true especially in the mines, and this I am not ashamed to say, if anything could add to the reluctance with which we should enter into any conflict with men in any of these trades, the memory of that fact will make us even more reluctant.
Then, may I say one word about the multitude of silent people—the men and women, too often bereaved, who quietly bore the racking strain of anxiety in their homes. These have been years where in millions of homes in this land every knock at the street door sent a shudder of fear to anxious hearts. It was too often a messenger of desolation. It can only be known in the Great Day what agony this War has brought to millions of homes. It will only then be known what measure of silent heroism has been displayed in enduring that grief. And here and now and to-day it is well to remind the land that all classes have suffered alike. There is no class which can point the finger of reproach to another. All have borne their share. The glory of a common achievement shines on all ranks in this land. The shadow of a common grief alone dims the lustre of that glory, and a nation whose men and women have for years shown such qualities in the hour of their country's need will show it yet again, if the need come with subtler, and, therefore, more formidable perils, to save the Motherland from danger.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I am quite sure the House would have been well content to leave this Resolution with the speech of the Prime Minister and the noble words which you, Sir, have read with such taste and feeling from the Chair. None of us in this House would attempt to rival the Prime Minister in the powers of speech by which he has so finely shown to-day the feeling of all of us with regard to the services to which he has alluded. But there is, at any rate, one thing which every one of us can claim—that in the feelings of the heart we are all his equal. In vain would we interrogate the past for the
record of such a War as this, and I, on behalf of these who associate themselves with me in this House, wish to tender to the Prime Minister our thanks for the generous reference to Mr. Asquith and to Sir Edward Grey who, with him, bore the burden of the early days of this titanic conflict.
The scope of the Resolution which you, Sir, have read shows that this was, in truth, a nation in arms, united in a common purpose, not only for the defence of this country and the Empire, but for humanity and freedom the world over. There was one point which the Prime Minister lightly touched upon, and of which we are all exceedingly proud, and that was the rally to the Colours of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force by the men of this land. It must for ever be an outstanding record in the proud annals of this country that no fewer than 4,500,000 to 5,000,000 men volunteered their services. But that is not the whole of the record of the volunteers for our Forces. There were, in spirit, volunteers by the terns of thousands among the men who came within the scope of the Military Service Acts. I can speak with, perhaps, a certain amount of authority in regard to that, and I do not hesitate to say that the great majority of the men who came within the scope of the Military Service Acts were men who were little, if at all, distinguished in spirit from those who volunteered their services before March, 1916.
Perhaps the House will pardon me one slight personal experience which is indicative of thousands of others. One morning a working man came to my tribunal. He was engaged in a necessary trade, and was the father of six children, all under twelve. This is what he said: "After last night's air raid I wish to withdraw my appeal. I must join up." He was only an illustration of the spirit which swept through this land before and after 1916. All classes of society, rich and poor, working men and employers—their deeds gentled all conditions in their service for this country, and we proudly claim this for all our men on land, in the air, and at sea, that by their deeds and, in the words of the Resolution, "their good humour, their clemency and the patience of their bearing, they were, in truth, gentlemen-at-arms. Never was it so true. The leaders of the men in command of all ranks gladly acknowledge that whatever criticism may come to be passed on tactics and strategy, things done or
things left undone, there is one verdict already given which will only gather strength as the years roll on—"the men were magnificent."
I should like to say one or two words in reference to our debt to the Navy and the Mercantile Marine. How delightful it is to notice that every officer of high rank in the Navy never makes a speech with reference to the doings of the War, without reckoning as comrades the men of the Mercantile Marine. The duty of the Navy, linked with the Mercantile Marine, was one of terrible responsibility. There might have been, and there were, great reverses on land, but our commanders at sea knew that a great reverse at sea would not only cripple our sure defence, but also carry with it disaster to the Allied cause. The Navy was the keystone of the Allied arch, and the feed pipe of every army in every land. The Navy and the Mercantile Marine have been, in every sense, fully worthy of the finest traditions of British seamen. Criticisms may come and go, but the result tells, and it is this—the open sea and Scapa Flow. As to the Army and the Air Forces, we know that the great commanders shared with the men those splendid qualities of patience, of equal mind in adversity, with a back-to-the-wall tenacity, and a cool courage which at last gave them the opportunity and the power for the irresistible rally. I desire to pay tribute to Marshal Foch. This is a family gathering, but there is no more welcome guest than the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied armies. His modesty, his courage, and his genius shone out from the first days of the War, and we, the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament here assembled, acclaim him, Marshal of France, one of the true captains of her soul. He was the French spirit incarnate, and never was it more shining than in those days of the disasters on the Marne, when he sent that message back to Paris," My centre gives, my right recoils, situation excellent, I am attacking."
I pass on to say one or two words in addition to the splendid tribute which the Prime Minister paid to the dead and to the sorrowing living—to those who went forth to return no more, save to the shattered homesteads of the hearts of those who loved them. They gave their lives; they did not lose them. They gave them as a precious gift, a priceless heritage to this country of ours and to the
world's freedom. If a man die, shall he live again? Truly these men and these women live to-day. Sowing there has been, what shall the harvest be? That is for us. They have fulfilled the last duty which came to them. We start into the autumn, and soon this winter shadows will be falling around us. We go into social gloom, but I have not the slightest doubt that if the spirit which animated these men who gave their lives and the men Jiving to-day who fought for us, is still with us, we shall in the troublous days of peace be worthy of a nation which was born in adversity, nurtured in sacrifice and reared on great ideals.

Mr. ADAMSON: I desire to associate my Friends and myself with the Vote of Thanks so eloquently moved by the Prime Minister. The services which have been rendered by our men to the country and to the whole civilised world are such as to make it very difficult for one to find suitable language in which to adequately express our appreciation and our thanks. I am certain that I shall find general assent when I say that I am convinced that if our men had not made such a magnificent stand in the course of these five years that this nation, as we have known it, could not have continued to exist. Not only was this nation engaged in a life and death struggle during that time, but it was also a life and death struggle for the freedom and integrity of all the other nations of the earth. Like the two previous speakers I have no intention of taking up much of the time of the House. Like my right hon. Friend 1 could have contented myself by leaving it to the Prime Minister, because he has very adequately expressed our thanks, but the position might have been misunderstood if we had not briefly expressed our appreciation of the services rendered by the various sections of His Majesty's forces. First in order comes the Vote of Thanks to the men of the Navy and of the Royal Marines. We as a nation can look back over our country's history for long centuries of noble achievement, dauntlessly performed, in all the circumstances of fell and difficulty, but there is no past period in the annals of our naval service where the service rendered by the men shone with brighter lustre than during the past five years.
I also desire to pay my tribute to the land forces, and when I say the land forces I include all who have been mentioned by the Prime Minister. The
courage and the valour of our land forces during the trying period of the War have been beyond all praise. Here again we can only say that the traditions of the British Army have been maintained in full, and the records of high and lofty courage for which the soldiers of our land have always been famous, have been upheld during that time. Our debt of thanks would not be fully paid if we did not specially thank our kith and kin from the Dominions beyond the seas. From all corners of the earth our kith and kin came spontaneously and promptly to the call of the Motherland. The bond of blood and of race has stood the severest test, and has come successfully through, in the common struggle against tyranny and military aggression. No chapter of British history will ever be more splendid than that which records the part played by the men from our Overseas Dominions in the terrible world drama that we were forced into.
I should like also to join in expressing our reverence in regard to the men who have fallen in this great conflict; the men who died that this country might live. The price of victory has been a heavy one. There are few homes that have escaped paying part of the toll. Many of us, so far as this life is concerned, never again can hope to have "the time and the place and the loved one together." I should like also, in addition to expressing my reverence to the men who have made the supreme sacrifice, to join with the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend in conveying a message of sympathy and condolence to the homes to which these men belonged. I am going to make a suggestion for the serious consideration of His Majesty the King and of the Government so far as the relatives and dependants of the fallen men are concerned. I understand that under past Army conditions the dependants of the men who have fallen have not got the general medal that is handed out at the close of each campaign.

The PRIME MINISTER: We will look into that.

Mr. ADAMSON: I understand that that is the position, and I would suggest to the Prime Minister that whatever the precedent may be, this should be remedied at the earliest possible moment. I make a further suggestion, and it is this, that in addition to the general decoration for the
campaign there ought to be a special decoration instituted and given to the dependants of our men who have fallen. We have many special decorations in connection with the naval and military forces, and the one I am now suggesting ought to receive the serious consideration of His Majesty the King and of the Government. I know there has been some talk about giving a plaque to each of the homes whence came the men who have fallen in the conflict. I do not think that that is a proposition that will meet with general acceptance. I think that the dependants, the wives, the mothers, and the fathers of the men who have fallen would rather have the decorations that are given out to the men who have more fortunately lived, and also that which I am suggesting to the consideration of the Prime Minister. There is another consideration. We on these benches gladly recognise and gladly pay tribute to all sections of the Services, from the Field-Marshal right down until we reach the ranks, and I believe that we shall have the general assent of the men of the higher command when we say that but for the valiant service of the rank and file, rendered in trying and uncomfortable conditions, our victory would not have been as complete as it is. My suggestion is this, that special pains should be taken by the Government to see that the men who have come back are provided for, amply and generously. At the present moment there are many hundreds of these men walking the streets who cannot find employment. It is true that they are getting the grant, but that is not, in our opinion, sufficient recompense, and my suggestion to the Prime Minister is that, if private enterprise cannot find sufficient openings to employ these men at remunerative work, a special effort should be made by the Government to give effect to this.
There is one other suggestion. I think that in this time of national rejoicing a general amnesty should be agreed to by the Government. Take the Army and Navy alone for the moment, and what is the condition? You have quite a large number of men who, during the course of these five years, have got various terms of imprisonment for breaches of Army or Navy discipline. What were the conditions in which these men came up against the Regulations of the Navy and of the Army? Not one in a thousand, perhaps would ever have been in either the Army or the Navy but for the call of the coun-
try. They were for the first time brought into contact with Regulations of which they had no knowledge, and which frequently they had broken before they were aware that their action was a breach of these Regulations. Some of these men are still in prison. The prison doors ought to be opened, and these men should be allowed to go free in whatever part of the world they are. The general amnesty in this general time of rejoicing should appeal even to a wider range than the men connected with the Army or the Navy. Unless those who for political offences are still languishing in prison have been guilty of some very serious offence, I would humbly suggest to the Prime Minister that they ought to be included. It might even be made wider than that. In a time of national rejoicing I think that the nation could well afford to make the amnesty apply to all those who are in prison with the exception of those who are in prison for offences that could not in a reasonable way be included in such an amnesty. I hope that the suggestions which I have made will receive the serious consideration of the Government; and I conclude by associating myself in the fullest way with all that has been said by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend by way of thanking all who have contributed to bringing our country successfully through the most trying period that it has ever had to face.

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I merely desire in two or three sentences to identify those with whom I am associated with the Resolution that has been submitted by the Prime Minister. I am quite sure that that Resolution and the speech which we have heard absolutely and entirely represent the heart and mind of this House. And I would remind the House that five years ago this week this House was called upon to endorse the very drastic action that the Cabinet had taken on that occasion. The House then, by the expression of opinion from all parties, was unanimous in endorsing the action which the Cabinet had taken. And it is a very remarkable fact that after the most dangerous and menacing times of our history, spread over a period of five years, the House of Commons is found to-day as unanimous as it was then in giving expression to these Resolutions that have been moved by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has called attention to three very great salient facts with regard to those who have fallen.
He has talked of the alacrity with which, though we are a peace-loving nation, our lads jumped to the Colours. He has talked about their heroism. He has spoken of their good humour. Their heroism I am certain is one of the greatest revelations to the world. And I am certain that, whatever view we had taken of our great town population, there was not one of us who dreamt that our lads were capable of such magnificent heroism, not in isolated cases but in cases by the thousand and the hundreds of thousands. How great has been their heroism has been well attested by our conversations with those who have had the honour of winning the Victoria Cross. Talk to them as I have talked to some hundreds of them, and ask, "What have you had this for?" and they say, "I do not know why I have had it. I do not know why it was given to me. I only did my duty as did a hundred other boys, every one of whom deserved the Victoria Cross as much as I have deserved it. "That, I am perfectly certain, reveals the great heroism that has characterised the whole of the ranks, whether drawn from this country or from our Colonies. The Prime Minister has spoken about their good humour, which also has been a revelation to us. Our boys have faced death, ugly wounds and disease with a smile on their faces all the time. It is because we have a great reserve of that good humour which was found among those who have fallen that I for one have no fear for the future, but believe that we are going to reap the fruits of our great victory in a prosperous peace and in a better industrial system. I have great pleasure in identifying my Friends and myself in the most cordial way with the Resolution moved by the Prime Minister.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I rise to say a few words byway of reinforcing one part of the eloquent meed of praise paid by the Prime Minister to those who have so well deserved it for their conduct in the War. The Prime Minister has spoken with his unmatched eloquence of the great deeds performed by the Mercantile Marine. Among these I am sure he included the fishermen. But the fishermen themselves, by the nature of their calling, are apt to differentiate themselves from both the Navy and the Mercantile Marine, and I only rise to say a few sentences in their praise which, I am sure, the Prime Minister himself would re-echo—

The PRIME MINISTER: Hear, hear!

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: —and to express the belief that with out those men victory at sea would have been impossible, and that we cannot exaggerate in any way the great debt which we owe to them for their matchless courage throughout the whole War, un trained and unprepared as they were.

Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.

FIELD-MARSHAL FOCH.

The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move,
"That this House accords its profound sense of admiration and gratitude for the supreme services rendered to the British nation by Field-Marshal Foch, Marshal of France, as. Generalissimo of the Allied Armies, in which great position he displayed a military genius worthy of the foremost captains in history:
That Mr. SPEAKER do signify the said Resolution to Field-Marshal Foch, Marshal of France."

Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

King's Message [5th August] read.

[Message from His Majesty (Naval, Military, and Air Forces) (Grants to Officers).]

Motion made, and. Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £585 000, be granted to His Majesty, to be issued to those officers who commanded and directed His forces by sea, on land, and in the air, in recognition of their eminent services during the late War, namely:


Navy:
£


Admiral of the Fleet, Sir David Beatty
100,000


Admiral of the Fleet, Viscount Jellicoe
50,000


Admiral Sir Charles E. Madden
10,000


Admiral Sir F. C. Doveton Sturdee
10,000


Rear-Admiral Sir John de Robeck.
10,000


Vice-Admiral Sir Roger J. B. Keyes
10,000


Commodore Sir Reginald J. Tyrwhitt
10,000


Army:


Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig
100,000


Field-Marshal Viscount French
50,000


Field-Marshal Sir Edmund Allenby
50,000


Field-Marshal Sir H. Plumer
30,000


Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson
10 000


General Sir Henry Rawlingon
30,000

£


General The Hon. Sir Julian Byng
30,000


General Sir Henry Horne
30,000


General Sir William Robertson
10 000


General Sir William Birdwood
10,000


Lieut.-Colonel Sir Maurice Hankey
25,000


Air:


Air Vice-Marshal Sir Hugh Trenchard 
10,000"

5.0 P.M.

The PRIME MINISTER: It is an honoured tradition of this country that it rewards liberally those who have rendered it conspicuous and distinguished services in time of peril, and that, I venture to say, is a sound tradition for a country. Ingratitude chills the ardour of service, and no State has long thriven which does not display its gratitude to those who have served it well in its time of peril. It was really one of the marked features of the distinction between Rome and Carthage, and the lesson is not without its value. I am proud of the fact that the pensions we have voted in this House—the scale of pensions—to the men who have served us well in the field and in the air and on the sea, is incomparably the most generous in Europe. I think the amount aggregates £98,000,000 a year, which is half the whole of the national expenditure before the War. There is no scale in Europe which compares with it, and I am proud of it. But we do wisely, we shall do wisely, if we accept this Motion, in maintaining the tradition that exceptional rewards should be given to those who have borne exceptional responsibilities with exceptional success. That is the proposition which I would invite the Committee to accept.
The Duke of Wellington had voted to him two pensions, in the aggregate £4,000 a year, for three lives, and after the Battle of Waterloo a sum of £500,000 was voted to him. That was for him alone. Lord Wolseley had £25,000 voted to him for the Ashanti campaign, and £30,000 for the Egyptian campaign. Those were moved by Mr. Gladstone, who was, undoubtedly, one of the most rigid and stern of all the great economists. Lord Roberts had £12,500 voted to him for the Afghan campaign and £100.000 for the Boer War. Lord Kitchener had £30,000 voted to him for the Soudan campaign, and £50,000 for the Boer War. Those two were moved by another famous and very rigid economist, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. That was the view taken in the past of the kind of reward that ought to be accorded to men who had rendered services of this kind to
the country. In magnitude, in fateful-ness for this country, there is no comparison between those wars and the War which has just come to a conclusion. Therefore, the sums which we are inviting the Committee to agree to err in comparison, not on the side of over liberality, but quite the reverse, and we have come to the conclusion that the precedents of the past should rather be fined down, not because we regard the merits of the men to whom we are going to invite the House to accord the vote as being less in comparison than those whose names I have quoted, but because we had to have regard to the gigantic burdens of the community. I need hardly tell the Committee that our greatest difficulty was in choosing—a very difficult and delicate task. There were so many who have done well, there were so many who have rendered brilliant and even dazzling service, and our difficulty is not in recommending the names which are down in the list, but in confining the appeal to the munificence of Parliament to these names I may say a few words about each of these men. There are so many that I cannot possibly do justice to any of the individuals which are mentioned. Therefore, if I say a few sentences in respect to men of great and outstanding merit it must not be regarded as in the least an indication that I do not consider that a good deal more might be legitimately said to the Committee on the subject.
I, first of all, naturally, choose Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. I have already spoken in this House, and at some length, on his great qualities. His tenacity of purpose, his dauntlessness in the face of what looked like disaster, make him an embodiment of the race which is so proud to claim him amongst its sons. But there is another quality of Sir Douglas Haig, which is known well only to those who know him well, and that is the readiness with which he has always been prepared to subordinate self to the demands of his country. That was never more clearly manifested than in the way in which he accepted the command of Field-Marshal Foch over the British forces which hitherto had been commanded by Sir Douglas Haig. There have been great men in the past who have rendered distinguished service to their country in this and in other lands, and who never hesitated to risk their lives in rendering that service, but who, somehow, failed in loyalty when it was a question of personal pride or professional
pride. Sir Douglas Haig has been as ready to sacrifice his own pride of position as he has always been ready to run the risk of his life. For that especially we honour and respect him. After all, modesty adds a cubit to the stature of the tallest man.
I would like to say a word now about Lord French, and I should like to say that in this day of crowning triumph we must not forget the day of small things—the time when Field-Marshal French, then Sir John French, had to lead few men, fine men, great men, never finer soldiers quitted these shores to fight for the Flag, but they were few against overpowering odds, inadequately equipped against the most finely equipped Army in Europe. He fought one of the six decisive battles in this War. That is too often forgotten. Sir John French led the British Army in one of the six decisive battles and campaigns of a war which produced hundreds of great battles. He fought the battle of Ypres— it is now clear from the German account of it—against overpowering odds. He won it. Had it been lost, the War would have taken a different turn. From the moment he won it, the faith in German military supremacy was irretrievably doomed. It is, therefore, meet that we should now, when German militarism is shattered beyond recovery, remember the great commander who, with small means, fought during the first year of the War and won a battle which covered the British Army with honour.
The name of General Allenby will be ever remembered as that of the brilliant commander who fought and won the last and most triumphant of the crusades. It was his good fortune, aided by his skill, to be able to bring to a glorious end an enterprise which absorbed the chivalry of Europe for centuries. We forget now that the military strength of Europe was concentrated for generations upon this purpose, and concentrated in vain. A British Army under the command of General Allenby achieved it and achieved it finally.
I have spoken quite recently of Sir Henry Wilson, one of the most gifted soldiers this country has ever possessed. I will add only one word to what I have said. His vision and organising gifts constituted one of the most treasured assets of this country in the trying days of 1918, and no list would be complete without Sir Henry Wilson. As for Sir William
Robertson, his services were rendered in the all-important field of organisation. It is he we have to thank for the fact that the General Staff was so well organised and rendered such great service, especially during the last two or three years of the War. He certainly deserves a name in this great list. As for Air Vice-Marshal Trenchard, he, by his energy and daring and drive and imagination and magnetism, which make for great leadership in war, made the Air Force become the powerful and formidable fighting machine that it was.
I have another name, the name of one who took no part in battle, but who was as essential to our success in this War as any name—I mean Sir Maurice Hankey. It is difficult for those who know to speak about Sir Maurice Hankey's services without appearing to exaggerate. His services were known only to a few, but none rendered greater service, and none, therefore, is more worthy of honour and of thanks. If any Member of this House will take the trouble to ask the leaders in any sphere of this War or. of the Peace about the services of Sir Maurice Hankey, they will realise what I mean. Let them ask naval leaders or military leaders, let them ask M. Clemenceau or President Wilson or Signor Orlando, and they will all bear the same testimony. He was the first to recognise before this War that if a great war ever came it would be a matter not merely of fighting men, but for the organisation of the whole sources of a country, and he it was who initiated, organised, and inspired that war-book that is one of the most remarkable productions any man could peruse. Going through it now, one can see how he foresaw things which were perhaps not visible except to very searching minds like his at the time, and which have now become part of the horrible realities of war. He served under my predecessor for a good many years, and I am permitted to read a letter Mr. Asquith wrote to him in November of last year, after the signature of the Armistice. This is Mr. Asquith's letter:
No one knows as well as I do how much we owe to you for our (ignorantly derided) prewar preparation, nor the extent and value of your daily, and almost hourly, contribution during the first two and a half years to every measure in all spheres that was thought out and done. I know that you have continued to the end, under constant strain which cannot be measured to render the same invaluable service. I
should like you to know that in my judgment you have been in a true sense what Carnot was called, 'The Organiser of Victory.'
I am in accord with every word of that. He refused a highly remunerative offer in order to remain in the service of Britain. If Sir Maurice Hankey's name were left out of this list I should feel ashamed of it. There is no one who has a better right to be in it, and there is no one I recommend to the House with less hesitation.
With regard to the Army Commanders whose names are very well known and whose achievements are known, no Army ever had better fighting commanders, and those who take an interest in the history of war know how much a Commander-in-chief depends upon his fighting commanders, and how much they contributed to Wellington's success in the Peninsula and to Napoleon's success in his great European campaign. As a matter of fact when Napoleon was deprived of the support of his great Marshals he failed, and Sir Douglas Haig and Field-Marshal Foch were the first to recognise that it would have been impossible, especially in 1918, to have turned the tide of battle had it not been for the brilliant leadership of General Plumer, General Home, General Byng, General Rawlinson, and afterwards General Birdwood, and I certainly commend their names to the generosity of the House.
I come to the Fleet. As for Admiral. Beatty everybody will recognise that he is worthy of the highest traditions of British seamanship. By his great fighting qualities in the War he established finally the-supremacy of the British Navy over its foes. There is no bettor tribute to his leadership than the fact that the fleet of the foe, having contested that leadership once, thought it wise to avoid putting it to any further test. As for Admiral Jellicoe, his services before the War and during the War were incalculable. His chief work was the work of organisation, not so well known to the public but just as essential to the success of a fleet in war as that of the fighting leaders who went into battle. Those are the services that Admiral Jellicoe rendered to the British Navy. As for Admiral Sturdee, the Committee will remember the brilliant action he fought off the Falkland Islands by which he rid the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic of raiders who interrupted our commerce and threatened to put an end to it for some years. As for Admiral
de Roebeck his services in the Ægean are well known. Admiral Tyrwhitt, who commanded the torpedo flotillas on the East coast is the outstanding representative of that special branch of naval service which embodies that ceaseless vigilance ever watching, over pursuing, ever chasing, ever striking, night and day, summer and winter, fair weather and foul, which ultimately ended in completely baffling the designs of the foe. Then there is Sir Roger Keys. His name will be ever quoted in naval history as the chief figure in one of those dramatic exploits which enrich the story of the Fleet and enter into the character of the Fleet. Those are the stories which attract children and attract the human mind when impressions sink deep into it and remain firmly in it, and this is one of the stories that will help to build up the character of the race. No list would be complete without Sir Roger Keys, the hero of one of the most dramatic exploits of the War. There is also Admiral Madden who undoubtedly rendered invaluable aid in the organisation of the Grand Fleet and of the Navy.
That I think completes the list. I think it will be agreed that they are all men who deserve well of the bounty of the House. I have taken the trouble to examine the precedents for grants of this character covering two or three centuries, and I think if Members of the House will take the same trouble they will find that we have fallen short of precedent, if at all. I think the Members of this Committee would do well, remembering this tradition, which is an honourable and high one, not to depart from it, and I therefore, remembering the great services these people rendered, and remembering what might have befallen this country if we had not had skilful leadership, earnestly say to the House that this is but a small part of the recognition which we owe to these great men.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £385,000.
I desire to associate myself with all that has been said by the Prime Minister regarding the splendid services which have been rendered by the officers named by him, and we realise as clearly as the Prime Minister the value of the services rendered by those gallant officers. At the same time, we do not take the view that those services can be measured by a money payment. We are not against a moderate sum being given in recognition of the in-
valuable services rendered, but we think that the sum given should be a less excessive amount than the amount named the Resolution moved by the Prime Minister. We think that the granting of such a sum is out of all proportion to the monetary rewards that have been given to the rank and file, and we recognise that the granting of such a sum as has been moved by the Prime Minister will give us a very powerful lever to use in trying to secure a more generous recognition of the services of the rank and file than has been secured up to the present time. Until we are able to secure a more generous recognition for these parties, we are strongly of the view that the sum that has been moved by the Prime Minister is an excessive sum. I want it to be clearly understood that we do not in any degree seek to minimise the value of the services that have been rendered by these distinguished officers. We recognise that as fully as anyone else, but we believe that these distinguished officers themselves would be the very first to place a proper value on the services rendered by the rank and file. As a matter of fact, I think we have had a striking example of that in the case of Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig within the last few weeks, and I want to pay my tribute to him for the invaluable service he has rendered in presenting the claims of the. Service men, particularly in the rank and file. But until we get a more generous recognition of the services of the rank and file, we are against the granting of such an excessive sum as has been moved by the Prime Minister. Not only looking at the payments that have been made to the rank and file in a general way do we say that their services should have been given more recognition than has been given up to the present, but, in addition to that, there are many cases yet where no recognition, so far as payment of money is concerned, has been made, and until these cases are fairly and generously treated, I do not think the Government is well advised in, moving the sum that is named in the Resolution of the Prime Minister.
If one cared, many examples could be given to prove the statement which I have made, but I do not want to weary the Committee by quoting numerous examples, as one could, of cases where service has not been recognised in the way that we think it should be, and I want to confine myself to giving only two cases on this occasion. A lot has been said during
the afternoon about the valuable services that has been rendered by the men of the Mercantile Marine, and I think that neither this House nor the country can pay too high a tribute to the value of the services of these men. But for their services the work of the Royal Navy would have been made much heavier, and the life of the nation itself would have been endangered. In the course of the services that have been rendered by the men of the Mercantile Marine, my attention has been called to the following incident. A boy, whose home is at Burnley, went to sea at the age of sixteen in the course of the War, and on his first voyage his ship was torpedoed. At the moment the ship was torpedoed he was right down in the hold of the ship and was seriously injured. He attempted to crawl on to the deck to escape with the other men, but just as he was leaving the hold in great difficulty and danger he saw that one of his fellow seamen was still in the hold and more seriously injured than himself. With great difficulty, this lad got hold of his fellow seaman, and after a fierce struggle was able to bring him to the deck, along with himself, and to put him in the position of being rescued by a destroyer. This boy was so seriously injured that he is now at home a cripple, and his widowed mother, who was dependent upon him, and himself are not in receipt of any monetary reward for the gallant service that he rendered on the occasion to which I am drawing the attention of the Committee. The second example I want to give is this. I have in my hand a telegram which I have received this afternoon from a number of demobilised soldiers, who wire me that they are unable to reconcile the lip-service of thanks to the forces with the fact that they have been deprived of their war gratuity. They ask your sympathy and support to-day so as to bring this question before the House, and they further protest against the awarding of huge financial grants to officers of high rank for doing their duty whilst withholding the beggarly pittance from the other ranks, who also did their duty.

The PRIME MINISTER: I have heard of these cases for the first time, and, like my right hon. Friend, I have not had the opportunity of investigating them. The first case struck me very much. I cannot understand why that gallant boy was not compensated, and I promise that investiga-
tion shall be made into the case. I do not quite understand the second, but if my right hon. Friend will give me the particulars, I promise to see that both cases are thoroughly looked into, because certainly no man who has suffered injury in the cause of his country should go uncompensated.

Mr. ADAMSON: I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for the promise he has made in respect of the two cases I have named, and I will certainly see that he gets the fullest particulars 1 can give him regarding them; but I can assure him and the Committee that, while I have only given two examples, there are many such cases that can be brought to the notice of the Government and the Prime Minister. Surely, before the Committee grants such a very large sum of money as is involved in the Resolution that has been moved by the Prime Minister, bare justice ought to be done to the men of the rank and file, who have done their duty as splendidly and nobly as it was possible for any officer to do it. We are going to take this opportunity of moving a reduction of £385,000 in the Vote that has been moved by the Prime Minister, leaving the sum of £200,000 to be divided, in the same proportions as are provided for in the Prime Minister's Resolution, among the gallant officers named. We hope that the Committee will support us in this Motion. If one cared to give elaborate reasons for moving such a substantial reduction in the sum named, of course we could deal with it from the point of view of the financial position of the country at the present moment. That itself is a very strong reason indeed for the strictest economy being exercised, but we take what appears to our minds to be the higher reason, and we say that until the rank and file are treated more generously than they have been up to the present, we disagree with what appears to us to be the moving of such an excessive sum as a monetary reward to those gallant officers.

Commander BELLAIRS: I do not think the Leader of the Labour party will get much support in the Division Lobby. He proposes to reduce the payments to Sir Douglas Haig and Sir David Beatty to about the level of an Ashanti campaign after all the great services which they haves rendered. I rose mainly for this purpose. I wanted in the first place to say to the Government that we did not get the information in the Vote Office in the usual way—and I think
we ought to pay respect to the forms of the House—as to the details of these different Grants. They were read from the Chair, but there is no White Paper or Blue Paper, and they are not circulated with the Votes, nor are they on the Order Paper. It is only a detail, but it is a growing practice, and I think attention ought to be called to it. [A copy of "Votes and Proceedings," 5th August, containing details of the Grants, was produced]. I must respectfully apologise, but I asked at the Vote Office and looked through the Order Paper, and I did not find it. My next point is this: The Prime Minister said ho had studied the records for 200 years. He will find that in those 200 years it was the invariable practice of this House to give Votes of Thanks to distinguished generals and admirals, but we are not doing so to-day. We thank the Services, but we are not giving any Vote of Thanks either to Sir David Beatty or Sir Douglas Haig. Among those records he will find that in 1814 and 1816 a Vote of Thanks was voted by this House to the Duke of Wellington. A Committee of the House waited on the Duke of Wellington and subsequently the Duke of Wellington attended on the floor of this House, was accommodated with a seat on the left of the Bar, and then returned his thanks, and the only other speaker was Mr. Speaker Abbott. I think that gave a formality to our Vote of Thanks, and I do not know why the precedent is being departed from now. I, for one, would like to seethe thanks of this House given to the principal commanders by land and by sea, and if thought desirable that they should return their thanks either by letter read on the floor of this House or in person at the Bar.
I want just to refer to two of the naval officers—Sir Charles Madden and Sir David Beatty. I think nothing moved the admiration of the nation more than when Sir David Beauty, a junior officer, was put over the heads of admirals like Sir Charles Madden. They served under him, and gave him the most loyal, wholehearted support. They were senior to him, but it is known throughout the Grand Fleet how splendidly Sir Charles Madden seconded all Sir David Beatty's efforts, and no two men could have worked more harmoniously together. As regards Sir David Beatty, it is difficult indeed to find words which are adequate to the abilities which he has shown in this War, and the great courage and spirit which he enthused into all ranks of the
Service. Merely as a naval student, may I say in studying all that Sir David Beatty has done, one feels exactly like the poet Keats when he read Homer—
Like some watcher of the skies,
When a new planet swims into his ken.
He is the one great naval discovery of the War, and I think the whole country may congratulate itself on the fact that they have a great naval genius still in the prime of life available for future service. It is a subject of regret that for some eight months Sir David Beatty's services have not been utilised in this country. I have never been able to understand the reason why. The Prime Minister quoted from Collingwood's letters, and I want to show the responsibility which Sir David Beatty has borne compared with the responsibility which Collingwood bore. Writing to his wife in 1808, Collingwood said:
I seldom read the newspapers, having quite enough of war without them. I have now as large a fleet as was ever employed by England, consisting of thirty ships of the line and eighty ships of war of different sorts. You may easily conceive that in the common occurences of such a fleet, I have not much time to amuse myself.
He spoke of that fleet of thirty ships of the line and eighty ships of war as the largest fleet that ever was employed from England, but the responsibility of Sir David Beatty far transcended that. I suppose if the German High Sea Fleet had come out, Sir David Beatty's Fleet would have been considerably more than 200 ships of war, in addition to a large number of aeroplanes and various other craft. That takes no account of the various mine flotillas and armed merchant ships, and so forth. One of the greatest qualities of Sir David Beatty was the way he enthused other people. He has some of the qualities of radium, which gives its qualities to surrounding bodies. Sir David Beatty, in the same way, used to draw the very best out of the officers and men under his command, and the whole Service will regard itself, I am quite sure, as honoured in the title which has been given to Sir David Beatty, and the Grant which this House, as a recognition, is going to make to him.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I only regret that any discussion has arisen at all on this subject of Grants to these distinguished officers who have led our Fleets. our Armies, and our Air Service to a victorious conclusion of this great War.
But, since a discussion has arisen, I feel bound to speak and oppose the Amendment. I had not the honour myself to serve in this War, so that anything I say is purely impersonal. The seaman, as a rule, is a humble-minded person, whose ideal is to do his duty and to seek for no special praise or exceptional reward for having done it. But he is very jealous of his reputation, and jealous that those who have merited some great distinction should have their due. I feel sure that the Navy, as a whole, will be satisfied with the thanks that this House has proferred them to-day as an expression of the gratitude of the whole of their countrymen. This Vote of Thanks conveys to the ranks and ratings of the Navy and the Royal Marines that, in the eyes of their countrymen, they have done their duty. They have upheld the glorious traditions of their great Service and they have maintained the reputation which they have inherited from generations of forbears. But, in addition to this, the ranks and ratings of the Navy, I am convinced, do expect that there shall be adequate, tangible reward to those who have led them during these four years of war to such a glorious conclusion as has been achieved by them. You cannot measure in terms of money the value to this country of a great commander in war; but of this I am convinced, that the Navy will expect nothing less in reward to their great leaders than has been put to this House by His Majesty the King, I presume on the advice of his Ministers. That, I feel sure, is the least the Navy expects should be given to these great leaders, and it is the least which is their due. I will make no reference whatever to the relative sums which are distributed to the different officers. There might be much comment on this, but I am satisfied that the decision of His Majesty is the correct one, and I will express no opinion whatever as to that.
I do not think that the Mover of this Amendment really fully appreciates the great value to the country of leaders such as those who are included in the list of admirals, or to how few is given the genius of command so necessary in war. I do not think those who support this Amendment fully appreciate the appalling responsibility which is borne by a man in such a position as that of Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet during the War. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last referred to Sir David Beatty. Let me draw
the attention of the Committee to the other great Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet, Sir John Jellicoe. Only those who know the circumstances can appreciate the terrible anxiety that Admiral Sir John Jellicoe was bearing in the winter of 1914–15, and let the Committee contemplate for a moment what the consequences would have been then if by any failure of his we had lost, even temporarily, the command of the sea. I refrain from elaborating on this. Suffice it that the genius, the endurance, and the indomitable courage of Sir John Jellicoe tided us over that most difficult and dangerous period—the most difficult and dangerous period to the Navy throughout the War. I have mentioned Sir John Jellicoe, but I take him as typical only. All the admirals included in this list come into the same category as does he. Their extraordinary genius in one direction or another, their endurance, their indomitable courage are common, I am happy to say, to all of them. But I think the Committee must realise, as must the whole country, that they have to be very thankful indeed that these great men were available to achieve the great service they did achieve when this country was in peril, and I think it is the bounden duty of this House to reward these great men, at least, to the extent that His Majesty the King has decided.

Mr. INSKIP: I hope the House will grant me indulgence while I call attention, in as few words as I can use, to a disparity in the amounts that are proposed for these sailors and soldiers. I am very conscious of my unfitness to speak on the matter which I propose to lay before the Committee, and I do so unwillingly in the absence of at least one other who would have been more qualified than I am, but I think there is in these proposals one proposal at least which is so out of harmony with the general scheme that the Committee should have its attention called to it. It will be noticed that the Army commanders, with one exception, are to be awarded an equal sum. The one exception—that of Sir William Bird-wood, the distinguished general in an enterprise which will never be forgotten so long as the history of this War is told, and also the commander of the Fifth Army—is to be offered a sum out of all proportion to the other sums for the Army commanders. This is likely to cause—nay, I believe, has caused—dismay and amazement in the hearts of the
members of the Australian forces. It has been already said, and we all must appreciate it, that these Grants are not intended to reward the recipients. They are but to express the gratitude of the nation towards those great leaders. They do not pretend to stand as money's worth to the men who will receive them, and I am quite sure they will not be received in that spirit. They will be received as an inestimable possession, which nothing can buy. It is not because either £10,000 or £30,000 is sufficient or insufficient that I desire to call attention to this matter, but because there is, apparently, an attempt to distinguish between the value of the services which these gentlemen have given to the country, which, I think, is unfortunate, and is likely to divert the attention of the nation and of the Empire to what some people believe to be the money value of the service which they have performed.
6.0 P.M.
These Grants are likely to be successful in their purpose—which, as I have said, is offered as an earnest of gratitude to these men—in so far as they allow attention to be directed to the greatness of the occasion, the greatness of the deliverance, and the services of the men, from field-marshal to private, who wrought that deliverance for us. These Grants do honour not only to the men who receive them, but they do honour to the incomparable men led by those recipients. And, again, I repeat that I am not calling attention to the value in money's worth. What I want to call attention to is the difference in the grants proposed to be made to the commanders of the four Armies compared with the grant which it is proposed to make to the one man who commanded the Fifth Army. It may be said that the commander of the Fifth Army only commanded it for a short time. At any rate, he commanded that Army during some of the most notable months of the War. I gather that there has been no attempt to measure the services of the other four Army commanders in regard to the number of months' service. General Sir Julian Byng has been credited—and rightly credited, in my humble estimation—with the same award and the same position as those occupied by the other distinguished generals who preceded him. No attempt has been made to measure these services by the period over which they have been spread. I am, then, more at a loss when I observe that, to all appear-
ance, Sir William Birdwood's services have been measured by the length of the time over which they nave been performed. It cannot be said that it is the smallness of his services which merit the less amount. It cannot be said that his services are not so great as the services of others by reason of the inefficiency with which he performed the tasks allotted to him. It is certainly not to be said that the value of his services are less because he is held in less estimation or regarded with less devotion by the men whom he led ! There is not a general throughout this War who has been regarded with more honour and affection by the men whom he has the honour to command than General Bird-wood.
There is another circumstance which leads me to think that this is an unfortunate distinction. Sir William Bird-wood, the Commander of the Fifth Army, it is true, was not engaged in some of the most serious fighting which took place in the last six months of the War. But he commanded that Army with a loyalty towards the other Armies which, I venture to think, enabled them to win the great victories which they did win. He trained division after division, with incomparable loyalty for the general cause, for other commanders. More than this, during the whole of that time Sir William Birdwood occupied the position that he now occupies of General Officer Commanding the Australian Forces. He made the appointments. He did everything that the General Commander of the Australian Forces then did, and now does. During the whole of that time he was Commander of the Fifth Army. He is regarded as the spokesman of the Australian Forces. They regard him with a devotion and affection which finds, I will not say, no parallel but, at any rate, no superior in the annals of our Army. Already the members of the Australian Forces are asking why this man is to be treated in a manner different from those who have occupied the position I have mentioned, and who have carried out their duties with only the same efficiency and devotion as has General Sir William Birdwood.
The Leader of the Labour Opposition this afternoon attempted in a manner which, I am sure, will not commend itself to the House, to measure the services of these persons by distinguishing between £680,000 and £200,000 or £260,000 or thereabouts, as if it were possible to measure these services in money even
when you are offering money. It is for this very reason, although I feel myself unfitted to bring this matter to the attention of the Committee, that I venture to do so. It is for this very reason that there has been some attempt to measure the services of these five gentlemen, by placing four in one category and one in another, that I hope, even, at this moment, that the Government will find an opportunity of reconsidering the matter so that satisfaction may be given, not, indeed, to the gentleman concerned—because I am perfectly certain he cares for none of these things, and regards more highly the work he has performed, the position he has held, and his association with the Army. The Government, I trust, will look into this matter out of consideration for the feelings of the Australian forces. I have discharged what I conceive only to be my duty, the matter having been brought to my attention by some of those who most deeply feel it. I ask the Committee to consider whether they will not agree to any proposal which the Government may bring before them for placing Sir William Birdwood in a position which, I am sure, the House agrees he occupies in the estimation, not only of the citizens of another country, but in the estimation of the people of the great Dominion where his name is a household word.

Mr. HOGGE: I am perfectly certain that when the Prime Minister brought this list down to the House he felt that he was leading the House into the temptation of listening to the kind of speech which the hon. Gentleman opposite has just made. Not that for a single moment I disagree with his speech, or would offer any opinion upon it; but immediately you bring down a list such as this, in which the Government seek to distinguish certain degrees of capability, capacity, and reward, amongst a large number of officers, you at once lay yourselves open to a discussion here about the qualifications of the officers. This, in my view, is to be regretted. There are two lines upon which this proposal can be discussed. There is the personal line beginning with Sir Douglas Haig and Admiral Beatty, and going through the list, attempting to assess the value of these men according to the views held by hon. Members; or there is the other method of dealing with the general principle upon which these awards should be made. I have neither
the information or knowledge of military, naval, or air points of view to assess the value of the work done by any of these hon. and gallant officers. Therefore, I propose, in the few remarks with which I shall trouble the House, to deal with the principle underlying the proposal laid before us. Incidentally. I may say that I do not think I can vote for the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife, because, as has already been pointed out by the hon. Member who spoke last, the Leader of the Labour party is attempting to do the same thing as the Government. I shall be prepared to vote—and presently I will give reasons why I should be prepared to vote—against any Grant at all. People may not agree with that position, but, at any rate, it is a more intelligible position than the attempt to assess, either in the form the Government has done it, or in the form suggested by the Leader of the Labour party, the capacity of these men. I cannot for the life of me understand why a distinguished general or a distinguished admiral who has all the prizes of his profession open to him should receive these Grants at the close of a war. It is not done in any other profession. If a Law Officer of the Crown wins a case for the Crown he does not get a reward for it.

An HON. MEMBER: He gets higher office!

Mr. HOGGE: Hon. Members may be amused at the analogy, but let me finish. I trust I may be forgiven for these personal references, but I take it that these officers in the Army and Navy will during the remainder of their lives draw very large salaries.

HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

Mr. HOGGE: Take the post of field-marshal. He gets £5,000 a year for life.

HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

Commander BELLAIRS: I think you are wrong. An Admiral of the Fleet. I know, gets £2,000 a year.

Mr. HOGGE: I was under the impression it was £5,000 a year. But put it at the figure of £3,000. Call it, as some one hon. Member suggests, X pounds. It is not the amount of money that matters: it is the principle. In addition, mark you, to the amount of the salaries they receive, the promotion they receive, the honours they receive, and the further salaries they
will receive—in addition to the ordinary gratuities they will get for service, these men are getting what is here suggested. If you are going to deal with these men on the basis of principle that is a point I want to make. But lot us get back. You want to have war service gratuities proportionate throughout the whole of the Army and Navy. The Prime Minister was interested in a telegram which the Leader of the Labour party read to the House. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the Labour party, it is apparent, understood the telegram, because the Prime Minister offered to go into the particular case that was mentioned in the telegram. There was no particular case mentioned in the telegram. What the telegram attempted to deal with is the question which has vexed the whole of the rank and file of the Army, as we very well know—the question of war service gratuities. The telegram said that the men were being deprived of their gratuities. It stated what was perfectly right, because with the introduction of the war service gratuity the Government has taken away from the man his ordinary service gratuity. Every man who is paid a war service gratuity to-day has deducted the service gratuity to which he was otherwise entitled. Does the House really realise what are the conditions given to the men who have made great the generals and admirals whom we are trying to honour this afternoon? I want to say incidentally that, so far as I am concerned, I have no objection to them having all the money if the basis is made proportional from top to bottom. Let us examine the injustice which, I think, the average rank and file are suffering under to-day. The average rank and file member of the forces, in the first place, is not so well off as the officer. Roughly speaking, the officer is entitled to a war service gratuity of 124 days' pay for his first year of service, and sixty-two days' pay for subsequent years' service—that is the officer who joined for this War. Incidentally, he is very much better off than is the Regular officer.

An HON. MEMBER: No.

Mr. HOGGE: Yes, he is. The Regular officer gats very much less war service gratuity. [An HON. MEMBER: "A pension!"] My hon. Friend reminds me of pensions. The Regular officer has rights of pension which the temporary officer does not have if he gets demobilised out of the Army at the present time. At the same
time there are many Regular officers in the Army who have suffered as much materially as the special category of men who join for the War, and there are temporary officers being demobilised from the Army who are receiving large gratuities, and who are no more entitled to them than the others who fought during the War. The officers are very much better off than the men. The average man gets £5 for his. first year and if he has been overseas, £6 for each subsequent year of service. If you take the average of four years which is the length of the War then the service gratuity amounts to £23. That is subject to deduction, and it is paid to the rank and file. I wonder if hon. Members have looked into the conditions under which other men were asked to re-enlist in the Army of Occupation, and if they have they will find this extraordinary anomaly, that a man re-enlists into the Army of Occupation who may not have seen any service, and may only be eligible for one year's service, but ho gets a bounty of £50 for four years new service with the Army of Occupation A soldier who has not carried the burden of the War and who remains in the Army of Occupation, and they are largely new soldiers, gets twice the amount of money, although he will be called upon practically to do no fighting as the man who was in the Army and served during the War, and who comes out with only £23.
I have already mentioned what the-officer had. I am sorry that neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the House, nor the War Secretary is here to deal with this point which has been, put before, and it is really a vital matter upon which the Government have never given this House a satisfactory answer. If a man's gratuity was determined on the basis of the officer's gratuity, in the typical case I have taken, the man would receive not £23 but £46 10s., which is £3 10s. above the bounty which the Government pay to a man who has never fought, but who has re-engaged in the Army of Occupation. There would be some sense in an arrangement of that kind, but we cannot justify giving these large sums to special officers this afternoon and also to the officers of the Army a bigger gratuity proportionate to the man who has fought. We cannot justify it either to the country or to the men we asked to fight. If the Government really want a unanimous decision on the question of these rewards to the great generals and
admirals, let them come with a proposal which runs from the heads of the Army and Navy down to the ranks on a basis that can be defended. If you can defend it in the way I have suggested, you would then have your officer and man receiving his war service gratuity in proportion, and you would have your distinguished generals and admirals receiving their gratuity on the basis of their large pay, and the only other honour they require is that which the State has showered upon them quite deservedly up to the present. I suggest the Government will be doing themselves an injustice if they attempt to proceed this afternoon to force the House to a Division upon a topic in regard to which hon. Members are not divided, and that is the question of doing honour to these men. The Government, by this proposal, may force into the Division Lobby many hon. Members whoso votes might be misunderstood, but will not be misunderstood after the kind of speech which I have tried to make. I am quite certain that it is worth the Government's while to take a little time over this matter and bring their proposals more in accord with the sentiments not only inside but outside this House amongst millions of discharged and demobilised men.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret very much the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. The question whether the men of the rank and file have been properly dealt with is not the point before us this afternoon, and we are not discussing the question of giving grants to officers or to generals as distinct from privates, but we are simply singling out for great honour some six or ten men from the three branches of the Service who performed services of super-eminent value to this country. I do not want to say it offensively, but I think hon. Members on the Labour Benches must remember that in the Army and the Navy no men are born equal.

Mr. J. JONES: And all generals are not geniuses!

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know that is true, but we are only offering this reward to certain picked generals, and I think everybody will agree that those who have been selected deserve exceedingly well of their country. But for the super-eminent work, the brain power, and the ability of those particular generals and admirals far more of the lives of our soldiers and
sailors would have been lost in this War. It is not a question between soldiers and generals, but of selecting for further high honour the men who have performed such wonderful service. I rose really to suggest to the Government two names which I rather think must have been omitted from the list before the House. The Prime Minister is not here, but I hope my right hon. Friend (Major-General Seely) will take a note of the two names I shall mention, and ask the Prime Minister whether they have not been left out by an oversight. The first I would mention is that of an Army Commander who fought with distinction and ability throughout the early part of the War. The Prime Minister has referred to the work of General French during the first battle of Ypres, and the House knows that General Sir Charles Munro commanded the Guards at Ypres, and subsequently became an Army Commander and commanded the First Army from the end of 1915 and all through 1916, and who went out on the instructions of the Government to Gallipoli to carry out the evacuation, which he did with a very small number of losses. Afterwards he resumed his post as Commander in the First Army, and he gave up that post in order to take up the position of Commander-in-Chief in India.
I have no authority to speak on behalf of General Sir Charles Munro and I have had no communication with him. but I do feel that perhaps his name, because he is no longer commanding an Army Corps, has been overlooked; but every soldier who served under him will realise that he was equal in ability—and he earned the devotion of all ranks who served under him—to any of the other Army Commanders whose names are to be honoured to-day. There is another name which should be mentioned in this list, whether it be in the form of a money reward or those other honours which have been announced in this morning's papers—I refer to General Sir Frederick Sykes, of the Royal Air Force. The Royal Air Force has been a great object in my life for years past, and I have glorified in its successes during the War. The words which the Prime Minister spoke with regard to General Trenchard are none too high. We all know the magnificent work he has performed, and the inestimable service his spirit gave to the young men of the corps. They all swore by him, and when he gave an order they were always
ready to go and carry it out. I am very pleased to see the Under-Secretary for Air present this afternoon. He knows the very great services which General Sykes rendered at the time when General Trenchard resigned his post and General Sykes was appointed to take the command in the field, and the very good services which he performed. I ask whoever is taking charge on behalf of the Government to mention these two names to the Prime Minister, and if they have been overlooked I ask that the matter may be reconsidered, and I feel by including them you will be doing honour not merely to those generals but to the whole community at large.

Captain LOSEBY: It strikes me to be very mean and ungenerous upon an occasion when the House has been called together for the purpose of doing honour to the Army as a whole through its great soldiers to indulge in what I venture to describe as nothing less than electioneering tactics in this House. I should not have risen but I think that I may claim to speak as one of the junior members of His Majesty's Army whom it is suggested have been wrongly treated. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hogge) complained that the junior officers, the privates, and the non-commissioned officers have not been singled out for rewards of equal magnitude. I say that whoever else you disgust when you criticise this Vote to-day you will disgust nobody more than the rank and file of the British Army, because the rank and file will consider they have been insulted when at any rate you venture to criticise these small rewards to their own great leaders.
I would like to see any right hon. Gentleman go into a canteen filled with men who served, for instance, under General Plumer. They might not know General Birdwood very well, but let them go to their own Army Commanders and say, "My dear fellow, that money should have gone to you," and I venture to say that in that canteen inside five minutes there would be twenty broken heads. It must be apparent to everybody that we cannot reward the entire rank and file, because the numbers are so immense that it is quite impossible. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Then do not reward anybody!"] We might desire to give every man £1,000,000 each, but we cannot tackle a sum like £5,000,000,000,000. No, Sir.
All we can do, I venture to assert, is to honour the Army through its great representatives, and to frankly recognise that although we have only picked out ten we should have liked to have picked out 1,000 men. In regard to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) I am sure he will agree that no one is more anxious than I am to see pension and other grievances remedied. But this is not the occasion for the discussion of questions of that nature. This is an opportunity which I believe the House at large will seize upon to honour the Army through its great leaders who steered us through the crisis with such wonderful skill, energy, and ability. I hope if hon. Members do divide on this question they will be unable to carry with them either the united Labour party or the Liberal dissentient party, because by dividing on this particular point they are only dishonouring themselves and the party they represent.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I do not propose to follow hon. Members who have suggested that further names shall be added to this list, but I wish to protest against a very important departure from precedent by the inclusion of officials who, however eminent their services, can in no way be said to be a part of our fighting forces. May I first say that I have nothing but admiration for the valuable services which I believe have been performed during the War by Sir Maurice Hankey. They were services largely performed out of the view of the public, and the House is quite ready to accept the statement of the Prime Minister that his work was, absolutely essential to our success in the War. In what I say as to the inexpediency of including Sir Maurice Hankey's name in this list I am speaking on entirely impersonal grounds, and upon a matter of principle. There is no precedent whatever in former Grants of this kind for the inclusion of any but leaders of the fighting forces on sea and land. Strictly speaking, I believe there is no precedent for the inclusion of such Staff officers as Sir William Robertson and Sir Henry Wilson. Formerly these Votes have been limited entirely to those who have commanded in the field, and although Sir Henry Wilson commanded a corps in the field he would not have been included in the general standard of Army commands which has been adopted in this list. But at the same time, though the Government has perhaps departed from the narrow interpretation of precedent in this matter, I think they were
well advised to extend their list to the chief of the Imperial General Staff, because nowadays in war the distinction between the Staff and the higher command is rapidly breaking down. A successful commander must have far more of the attributes of Staff officers than was necessary in former wars. Personal presence on the battlefield is no longer possible, and a military commander nowadays does work which can only be successfully carried out if he appreciates the task of his Staff officers. Therefore, when I say that it is a mistake to depart from precedent I make this exception, that it was right to include these important Staff officers.
Still, if we leave the path of precedent and no longer restrict ourselves to giving Grants to the leaders of the fighting forces, we find ourselves on very slippery ground indeed. Sir Maurice Hankey, before the War and during the earlier stages of the War. was Secretary of the Imperial Defence Committee, and since 1916 he has done very valuable work as Secretary to the War Cabinet. His work, however, approached far more closely in its nature to the work of the Civil servant than to that of the military leader, and why should you single out what in essence was one civil functionary from amongst the others; There are many names that will occur to Members of this House, names of men eminent in war work on the civil side, who have I think equal claims to consideration. What about Sir Eyre Crowe, who did so much to ensure that we got the full fruits of the War in the Peace negotiations? What about the officials responsible for our munitions supply and for our financial arrangements? if such a Grant is to be made to anyone outside the fighting forces, surely you cannot ignore these officials. You ought, indeed, to make a Grant to the Prime Minister himself, who stands out among all others for the tremendous strain and responsibility which he carried—a strain far greater and a weight of responsibility far heavier than that which rested on the shoulders of any of these naval or military commanders. Apart from the question of making an invidious choice between practically one civil function and another, it surely is inopportune to create a precedent for new expenditure. As a matter of principle while fully recognising the eminent services of Sir Maurice Hankey as Secretary of the War Cabinet, I do feel it is most
regrettable that his name, or indeed any name, should be included outside the ranks of the fighting Services.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I rise to support the Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson). At the same time, like the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), I could wish that it had been a clear-cut Amendment to reject these Grants altogether, rather than to reduce them pro rata. My ground is really based on the fundamental fact that all those who took part in this War, particularly those in the Army and the Navy, did their best according to their ability, and any man who does his best according to his ability, whether successfully or unsuccessfully, should receive equal thanks from his country and should also be treated equally so far as any monetary reward is concerned. I profoundly dislike this selecting of certain names with a view to the giving of special gratuities. It is bad morally to lead people to believe that if you happen to be in a certain position, although you have only done your duty like the rest, you can obtain a special reward—a special financial reward. Honours and titles are certainly due to people who have held distinguished positions, but money grants bring down the honour to a very low basis, and do not add to the reputation of the generals or admirals who obtain them. We have heard this afternoon names suggested of men who rightly demand equal honour. It is held that we are measuring the honour and gratitude which we owe to General Birdwood or to General Hankey, or to General Robertson, by the amount we pay them, and that everybody who has commanded an Army who is left out of the list feels he has been slighted. At the same time we know quite well that there are many men behind the Army commanders who have been far more the brains of the movement that carried us to victory than the generals themselves. The people who are left out are relegated not only by the House but by history itself to the background. That seems to be most deplorable. We should base ourselves on the thanks of the nation alone, and those thanks ought to be the finest reward which can be given. These generals and admirals have in many cases big salaries. Sir Julian Byng is a rich man, so too is Admiral Beatty. Indeed. they are all well-to-do. They have no need for money, no need for these Grants.
Every one has a large income, and the country is by no means called upon to make these Grants, especially when it is well known that by so doing it is creating the gratuitous feeling that certain people have been slighted while other people have been given an unfair advantage. The only sane way of rewarding generals is to give them the thanks of the country.
Then I object to these Grants on another ground. The country is already semi-bankrupt, yet here we are proposing to spend £700,000 when as a matter of fact we have no money to spend. If we had got a balance-sheet in which our income equalled our expenditure we might afford to give away this £700,000, but we are now proposing to give it away at a period when we are borrowing £300,000,000 a year. In the past when these Grants have been made to successful generals, the country has been in a solvent state. Now, however, it is in an insolvent condition, and to go on squandering the money, thereby bringing the nation nearer and nearer to bankruptcy is one of the most terrible mistakes this House can make. We have agreed to pay £18,000,000 for pensions to the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force. We have had the salaries of Secretaries of State raised. What is the natural result of all this extravagance on the working classes of the country? Naturally when they see money being squandered in this way they think they ought to have more. I know hon. Members call me a Bolshevik, but I can assure them from my knowledge of the country at the present moment that by this policy they are doing more to create Bolshevism here than I ever did. It is this perpetual extravagance on the part of the Government, unaccompanied by any attempt to make both ends meet or to secure retrenchment that is making the people in this country desperate. They are getting in the habit of thinking on these lines: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. "That is the basis of most of the extravagance that is going on. They sec the Government squandering money, and both the working classes and middle classes are getting that feeling. The surest way to create strikes and other troubles is to continue this policy of extravagance, a policy which, in my opinion, must be put a stop to. Although many Members here—not myself—might like in ordinary circumstances to give big gratuities to Army Commanders, at the same time, when you have not got the money, it is a
very bad time for going further into debt and promising people money you have not got.
There is a third reason why I object to these Grants. It is because we always have on these occasions a perfect orgy of hypocrisy, nothing more or less. We have been told by speaker after speaker that all these generals and admirals are geniuses, and that they are the greatest leaders this country has ever had. We all know in our own souls that such is not the case. They are human beings, and have done their best, but it was not a very good best. We all remember the joy-bells being rung for Cambrai, and that that was a little premature. We all remember Passchendaele, with its 270,000 casualties, and the battle which went on a month after it ought to have stopped, and thereby blunted the finest weapon in the world—the British Army. I know that these things are not talked about in this House, but they are known to everybody who fought in these battles. What will the people who fought at Passchendaele say of these Grants being made to the generals who were in charge? Are they going to be grateful to them for it, or for all the gush that has been ladled out to the leaders? We all know that mistakes were committed. All this talk about these heaven-sent geniuses in the upper ranks of the British Army is not based on sound fact. It will be a bad thing for the British Army if young officers in future are to be taught that genius was shown by our Army in this War. If they are to take our strategy as displayed in this War as an example for all future time it will not be very good for the education of the Army. We won this War because the men fought it like men. We won it very often in spite of the generals and the brass hats. I, for one, must enter a protest against this sort of idea that it was divine leadership which carried the British Army to victory.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Notwithstanding the remarks which fell from the hon. and gallant Member for East Bradford (Captain Loseby), I submit to the Committee that it is possible to be unanimous in desiring to do honour to these generals and yet differ as to the means of bestowing that honour. Are we not lowering honours and titles, or taking from them, by reducing to a cash basis the honour which we seek to do to these generals and other officers'? I know that the Prime Minister referred to precedents, but some precedents are honoured more in the
breach than in the observance. He went back two or three centuries. If he had gone back further he would find that the origin of these Grants is really to be found in the days when the King called his nobles together and they raided a neighbouring territory and divided the spoils between them. I do not suggest for one moment that that is at the back or underlies the principle of these Grants— far from it; I know it is not so. But if you appeal to precedents, a precedent such as that is one which might well be departed from in these days. We have been told on many occasions that we are a new world. Cannot we, therefore, break with some of these old precedents; cannot we get back to the fundamentals of life, to the verities, and give honour for honour's sake? We were told in the Debate in this House last night that it ought to be considered a sufficient honour to be a Cabinet Minister without salary, merely for the honour of public service. I submit that something of the. same spirit should be observed in regard to the honours we are giving to the distinguished generals who fought in this War. Honours for honour's sake, such as titles. and decorations, are excellent, but you depreciate them if you bring them down to a cash basis.
I hesitate to make these remarks, because one might be so easily misunderstood. As one who served as a non-commissioned officer for two years overseas under some of these commanders we are honouring to-day, I should regret vary much if anything I said should be taken as in any way suggesting that I was not with the rest of the Members of the Committee in seeking to do them honour for the magnificent service they have rendered. At the same time, why differentiate? Out there we all stood the same risks, the same difficulties, and the same privations. Our opportunities were unequal, and I do not suggest for one moment that those of us who served in the ranks did equal service, although we may have done what we could. At the same time, having stood equal risks, having been comrades together in all the hardships, why now differentiate? The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) pointed out that the man in the ranks gets his gratuity according to his length of service. Would it not have met the justice of the case if, in the same way as officers receive higher gratuities than
the men, these higher commands should be put proportionately on the same basis for gratuity for service, and that we should not make a special monetary Grant, such as we are asked to consider to-day? I suggest, with all respect, that we should break with the old traditions, and that we should be doing greater honour to these great men by not attempting to reduce their services to a cash basis. Member after Member who has spoken has taken pains to explain that the sum indicated would not in any way represent the debt due to them. I agree with that. Why introduce the cash basis at all? Seeing that you cannot do justice on a cash basis, why not eliminate it altogether? I disagree with the Leader of the Labour party, who suggests that we should reduce the amount. If you are to give an amount, let it be a just one. Let honours, titles, and distinctions which are awarded and the honour in the memory of a grateful public be the reward for the magnificent services these officers have done, but do not belittle that honour by bringing in a cash payment.

Major-General Sir JOHN DAVIDSON: I had hoped it would not have been necessary for me to take any part at all in this Debate. I regret very much the turn it has taken. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) mentioned the subject of war gratuities to the men. I do not see what that has to do with the subject we are discussing to-day. That particular subject was brought up on the Army Estimates last Tuesday, and, if I am not mistaken, the hon. Gentleman was either not in his place to discuss the matter or he did not raise it in Debate. It was raised by hon. Members on this side of the Committee and by the Army Committee, who would probably back him up if he raises it another time. It strikes me that some hon. Members think that an election is not very far off when they begin to mix these subjects up together. I am a new Member of the House, and that is my opinion. I am not going to discuss the merits of the Army commanders, of the Commander-in-Chief or of any of the other officers of the Army who have been mentioned. I should like, however, to point out that Sir Douglas Haig has hitherto refused to accept any honour until he saw that the men and the officers were being properly and adequately treated. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-
under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) mentioned the Chiefs of Staff and of Armies by name, and said that they were very largely responsible for the success of the operations of their Armies.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I said more than were the General Staffs.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: I do not agree at all. If the Chiefs of Staff of the two Armies were here to-day, they would say that the entire credit was due to their Army commander, and they would support him as much as possible. That is my opinion from close find intimate know ledge of them. I should like to tell the Committee a good many stories about the anxieties and responsibilities of these Army commanders, whom I know very well, but I am not going to waste the time of the Committee in doing that. There is one matter on which I feel it is necessary for me to say something. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme mentioned the battle of Passchendaele. I should like to tell the Committee not only my views but the solid facts. One hears a great deal of discussion of that battle. I have heard it during the last six months all over the country. I am going to tell the Committee the facts of the case, and what I think about it. First, I should like to explain what was the general situation at that time. At the beginning of 1917, just after the battle of the spring, the Russian Army ceased to exist altogether as a fighting force. Then the French Army, to a very large extent, ceased to exist as a fighting force, owing to the troubles they had within that Army. That may not be generally known to members of the Committee. With all respect to the French, I think it is very important that we should ascertain the facts and not hide them up. The French had a lot of trouble inside their Army, and were not really of very much value to us during the summer and autumn of that year. The third point is that the Italian Army was completely out of operation altogether, owing to the attack in the autumn. The fourth point is that America was not in the War at all, and could not give us any assistance. That is to say, in other words, the Allies were of little value to the British during the summer, autumn, and winter of 1917, and the British Army had to bear the whole brunt of the world war.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is that any reason for throwing it away?

7.0 P.M.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: These are absolute facts, and there is no question about them. Another point which added very greatly to the anxieties and troubles of those in high command was that the Admiralty were extremely anxious about the communications across the Channel. They sent over to the High Command in France, through the ordinary channel, to say that unless the ports of Ostend and Zeebrugge could be brought under our control our communications across the Channel would be very greatly endangered. That was a matter of very serious consideration. The fifth point I have to make is the weather. Normally speaking, the good weather lasts certainly up to the middle of September, and should be quite good enough to go on with operations. The weather broke, as we know, in July or early August, and the operations were carried out under a great disadvantage. Had the weather held from the beginning, I have not the least doubt that we should have brought the ports of Ostend and Zeebrugge within our long-range-gun fire. There is a. strategic principle, with which perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not agree I have no doubt that he is a great strategist, but there are others—that is, that when all the enemy forces have been released from the Eastern Front, and are pouring over the Western Front, and when your communications—

Major HAYWARD: On a point of Order. Would it be in order for us to discuss the operations on the various fronts on this Vote?

The CHAIRMAN: I have thought it right to permit a number of hon. Gentlemen, particularly the one (Colonel Wedgwood) sitting behind the hon. and gallant Member for Seaham, to travel rather wide in this discussion. I thought it would be better not to interfere, but I do suggest to hon. Members generally that the discussion is tending to go too wide, and I think they might now come back to the question of the Vote before the Committee.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will it be in order to reply with reference to Passchendaele when this Amendment is disposed of?

The CHAIRMAN: I would suggest to the hon. and gallant Member and to others that it would be undesirable.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: I would never have touched on this question at all—I dislike it intensely—if the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme had not mentioned it. I was saying that when the enemy's forces had been released by the collapse of Russia from the Eastern Front, and were swarming across, both formed bodies of troops and reinforcements, and when our own communications were in danger, the only thing to do, considering that the British forces on the Western Front were working single-handed, was to attack. I am perfectly convinced that history, when it is written, will say that the right thing to do was to attack, and to stick to that attack as long as that menace existed and until the winter shut down the possibility of the Germans themselves attacking. I believe, seeing that France, Russia, Italy, and America were of very little use during that period, that the action of the British Forces did prevent the War being finished a year earlier, and finished the wrong way. The British came out on top during that period, because they stuck to it in their bulldog way, as perhaps they can do better than any other nation. When the history is written of that period, from June or July, of 1917, until the end of that year, I believe it will be found that it was the most critical period of the whole War,

and that the greatest credit was due, not only to this country but to the Commander-in-Chief and his Army commanders, for sticking to it during that time, fully realising the appalling conditions under which tine troops were operating. I believe myself that history will prove that, although possibly the hon. and gallant Member on the other side may be able to prove something else in the meantime.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would make an appeal to the Committee whether the time has not come for arriving at a decision on the subject before the Committee. A discussion of such points as have been dealt with in the last two speeches would be endless, and I am perfectly certain that there is no one in this House, whatever may be his views as to mistakes or absence of mistakes, who does not realise the great part which has been played, not only by our soldiers but by the leaders of our soldiers, during the War. The real question is whether or not the amount suggested by the Government shall be granted. On that point I think the Committee has made up its mind, and I think it would be well that we should now come to a decision.

Question put, "That a reduced sum, not exceeding £200,000, be granted for the said services."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 288.

Division No. 85.]
AYES.
[7.5 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Hartshorn, V.
Sexton, James


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Tom (Preston)


Arnold, Sydney
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Hogge, J. M.
Sitch, C. H.


Bottomley, Horatio
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Capt A. (Nelson and Colne)


Briant, F.
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Smith, W. (Weilingborough)


Bromfield, W.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Spencer, George A.


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Kiley, James Daniel
Swan, J. E. C.


Cairns, John
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Cape, Tom
Lunn, William
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Crooks, Rt. Hon. William
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Thorne, Colonel W. (Plaistow)


Davies, Alfred (Clltheroe)
Neal, Arthur
Tootill, Robert


Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)
Newbould, A, E,
Walton, Sir Joseph (Barnsley)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
O'Connor, T. P.
Waterson, A. E.


Dawes, J. A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wedswood, Colonel Josiah C.


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Rendall, Athelstan
Wignall, James


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Grandy, T. W.
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —Mr.


Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Rowlands, James
T. Wilson and Mr. T. Griffiths.


Hallas, E.
Royce, William Stapleton



NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Baldwin, Stanley


Agg-Gardner, sir James Tynte
Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Atkey, A. R.
Balfour, Sir Robert (Partick)


Amery, Lieut.-Colonel L. C. M. S.
Baird, John Lawrence
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.


Barker, Major R.
Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
Matthews, David


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. N. (Gorbals)
Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Gaddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Mitchell, William Lane-


Barnett, captain Richard W,
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Morden, Col. H. Grant


Barnston, Major Harry
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Morris, Richard


Barrand, A. R.
Gllmour, Lieut-Colonel John.
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Glyn, Major R.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.
Mosley, Oswald


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Mount, William Arthur


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Murchison, C. K.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Gregory, Holman
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)


Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W.
Greig, Colonel James William
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Gretton, Colonel John
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)


Benn, Capt. W. (Lelth)
Griggs, Sir Peter
Murray, William (Dumtries)


Bennett, T. J.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nail, Major Joseph


Betterton, H. B.
Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)


Birchall, Major J. D.
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)


Bird, Alfred
Hacking, Captain D. H.
Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)


Blades, Sir George R.
Hall, Capt. D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Nield, Sir Herbert


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred. (Dulwich)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Oman, C. W. C.


Bowles, Col. H. F.
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)
O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Henderson, Major V. L.
Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)


Brackenbury, Col. H. L.
Hennessy, Major G.
Parker, James


Bridgeman, William Clive
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Parry, Major Thomas Henry


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Perkins, Walter Frank


Bruton, Sir J.
Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.
Perring, William George


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)


Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.
Hinds, John
Pollack, Sir Ernest Murray


Bull, Right Hon. Sir William James
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pratt, John William


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Hood, Joseph
Prescott, Major W. H.


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothlan)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Purchase, H. G.


Carr, W. T.
Horne, Edgar (Guildford)
Rae, H. Norman


Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Hudson, R. M.
Raeburn, Sir William


Casey, T. W.
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh (Oxford U.)
Hurd, P. A.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.
Reid, D. D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Inskip, T. W. H.
Remer, J. B.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson


Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill
Jesson, C.
Renwick, G.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Jodrell, N. P.
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)


Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Johnstone, J.
Rodger, A. K.


Clough, R.
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rothschild, Lionel de


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund


Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)


Cohon, Major J. B. B.
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.
Joynson-Hicks, William
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kellaway, Frederick George
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Courthope, Major George Loyd
Kenyon, Barnet
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Seager, Sir William


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Kidd, James
Seddon, J. A.


Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)
King, Commander Douglas
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Knight, Capt. E. A.
Simm, Colonel M. T.


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Knights, Capt. H.
Spret, Colonel Sir Alexander


Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Larmor, Sir J.
Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F, (Preston)


Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)
Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Stanton, Charles Butt


Davies, T. (Clrencester)
Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Stevens, Marshall


Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Lloyd, George Butler
Stewart, Gershom


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Doyle, N. Grattan
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Sugden, W. H.


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Lonsdale, James R.
Sutherland, Sir William


Edge, Captain William
Lordon, John William
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)
Lort-Williams, J.
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Losesy, Captain C. E.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)


Falcon, Captain M.
M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Bosworth)
Tickler, Thomas George


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Townley, Maximilan G.


Farquharson, Major A. C,
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Tryon, Major George Clement


FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T, J.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Macquisten, F. A.
Waddington, R.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Maddocks, Henry
Walker, Colonel William Hall


Forster, Rt. Hon. H. W.
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Foxcrott, Captain C.
Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)




Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Weston, Colonel John W.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Wolmer, Viscount
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Wigan, Brigadier-General John Tyson
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)
Younger, Sir George


Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —Lord E.


Willey, Lt Col. F. V.
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)
Talbot and Captain F. Guest.


Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)
Woolcock, W. J. U.



Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Worsfeld, T. Cate

Original Question again proposed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have no intention of pursuing the discussion. I am quite content to leave it to the judgment of history.

Mr. HODGE: I feel sure it must be obnoxious to the gallant generals and admirals that their names should have been brought into this discussion at all. I think the Government are absolutely and entirely to blame for that in seeking to apportion merit in terms of money. The hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) raised a question with respect to gratuities, and various other points have been raised, and I think it would be well that there should be some reply to them. For the purpose of recording my protest against the introduction of the Civil Service into this discussion I shall vote against the whole sum.

Mr. HOGGE: On one of the few occasions when the Prime Minister is here I should like to ask him to say something about the war service gratuity of the ordinary soldier. It is not fair that the men who have served, and who are not getting these rewards should be left in their present position and that the Prime Minister should not give us some indication on behalf of the Government as to whether they are to receive at least as much in war service gratuities as the Government are paying to the men who joined the new Army.

Commander BELLAIRS: I raised a question on the Vote of Thanks being given by the House to the distinguished generals and admirals who commanded in the field, and in particular to Sir David Beatty and Sir Douglas Haig. I pointed out that it was following the invariable precedent which was carried out in the case of commanders in the past that we should do so, and that a Committee of this House should wait on them and submit the Vote of Thanks to them, and that they should reply by letter or follow the precedents of previous cases, such as when the Duke of Wellington attended at this House and spoke in answer to a Vote of Thanks, the only other speaker being Mr. Speaker Abbott.

Mr. J. JONES: I do not want to vote against the recognition of the great services rendered by the admirals and generals without giving some reasons for so doing, and I want to answer, if I can, some insinuations which have been levelled against Members of the party with which we are associated. If it be true that this is an electioneering, attempt on the part of those who oppose this Vote, our friend the enemy has the best opportunity of counting noses, because my mind goes back to 1914, when those who were able to influence those with whom we were associated were asked to appeal to our fellow-workers to join the Army and fight in defence of freedom and liberty, and we were told by those who asked us to assist not to offer any bribe but to point the way to duty, not to talk about what men would get if they went, but to appeal to them to fight in defence of the liberty and freedom of the people, which was being attacked by the most tyrannous militarism the world has ever seen. We have gone through the War and we have won. I am going to give every possible credit to the great generals and admirals who have done their duty so nobly, but in giving them credit I am not going to recognise that they have done any greater service than the common soldier and the common sailor. The common men who have fought can say to the admirals and generals, "As good as you are and as bad as we are, we are as good you are, bad as we are. "The hundreds of thousands of men who are now being demobilised can also ask, what have they got from a grateful nation. A suit of clothes, valued at £2 l7s. 6d.—shoddy; they have got a gratuity which will go in a few weeks at present prices; and they have got an out-of-work ticket And there are a large number of people putting questions as to lazy bounders who will not work. After all they have done, the common men who have fought are going to get no recognition beyond a Vote of Thanks from this House and the possibility of being out of work until trade gets better. The discussion reminds me very much of a story told about a great English admiral going into action. He was parading the
deck and he found one of the ship's boys praying on his knees. He said, "What are you doing there, my lad?" The boy said, "I am praying, sir." "Praying," he said, "don't you know we are going into action, and this is not a time for prayer?" The boy said, "My mother told me, when I joined the Navy, that whenever I was in any trouble I was to go on my knees and appeal to my Maker. I am doing so." The officer softened a bit, and said, "Tell me what you were praying for." "I was praying to the Lord that he would direct the enemy to send the shells in the same way as you do the prize money—the biggest number amongst the officers. "Evidently that is the principle that is being followed. "To him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away, even the little that he hath."
They have come home after fighting for their country and find they have no country in reality, because on the road they are tramps and off the road they are trespassers. Whenever we ask for any consideration for them we are told about the generous treatment they are going to receive if they will only wait and toe good and obey those in authority over them. I am not going to give a silent vote. These great generals have had honours showered upon them and have received the freedom of all the great cities of the Kingdom, they have been thanked by both Houses of Parliament, they have behind them the salaries they have received and in front of them the possibility of pensions. I think the motto ought to be adopted by the country, "He who would be greatest amongst you, let him be the servant of all. "If we are going to hold out to these generals and admirals the idea that because some of them are not so prominent as others, they are going to receive less recognition, although their services might be equally great—if we are going to divide them up into sections and sub-sections and say which of them shall receive the most, we are reducing the very principle we are proposing to do honour to the lowest cash nexus basis, and the trail of the weights and scales is over it all. These men would be more greatly honoured by the thanks of Parliament and the gratitude of the nation than they are by the sums which are now being given them against the protests of thousands of men who think they have not been fairly treated by the State they have served equally well. The
poorest soldiers and sailors who have done their bit in the War are as much deserving of being guaranteed against future poverty as these generals are entitled to receive money which they do not really need. Honour we can give them and I hope they will never require anything more than honour. The other men do require more. They require generous treatment, which they have not yet received. What about the widows? What about the mothers and the fathers who are helpless and disabled, "who are not able to work and whose sons have laid their lives down? What are they receiving from the country? If you have money to throw away let us give to those who are most in need of it. If it is a question of money grants, give it to the fathers and mothers of the men who will never come back and give it to those women who are loft behind who are asking themselves how they and their children can live. I want to record my vote against the whole measure, because I do not believe these great men will be honoured by the money you are giving them, but will be far more honoured by the grateful appreciation of a nation which is thankful for their services.

The PRIME MINISTER: I rise simply to reply to one or two questions which I was under the impression had been answered. The Secretary of State for War came here to reply to questions with regard to gratuities. I do not know what happened in the course of the discussion. The answer with regard to the gratuity is one which I should have thought my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) would know. The gratuity which the soldiers would receive under the old conditions came to about£1 a year. That was the amount under the Warrant. The Cabinet came to the conclusion that that was grossly inadequate as a gratuity, and they decided to agree to a gratuity which amounted — I am speaking roughly —to something like five times the amount which, under the old Warrant, would have been given to them. [AN HON. MEMBER "Twenty-three times!"] If it is twenty-three times, then the case is all the stronger. I do not think it is twenty-three times, but it is at least five times, and in some cases it is a good deal more than that amount. That was 'a substitute for what we regarded as the meagre and niggardly sum that was given to the soldier under the
old allowance. I do not think it is fair that it should go forward on the authority of hon. Members that soldiers are being deprived of something to which they have a. right. On the contrary, this House has voted something which was enormously greater than anything that' had been accorded to them under the terms of their service, and I think it is fair that the soldiers should know that. The amount in the aggregate is very considerable. It runs to several millions.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Very many millions.

The PRIME MINISTER: It runs to very many millions. That sum has been voted by this House with the general assent of Members. I want that known, so that it shall not be said, as a result of this Debate, that we are voting £580,000 to the generals and giving no gratuity to the soldiers. It does not represent the facts in the least.

Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite fair to us. Nobody said that we were not giving war service gratuities. We know that they are getting war service gratuities. The House knows that j they are getting war service gratuities in place of service gratuities. The point I made, and the point which has not been replied to, was that, on the average, these men are not getting in proportion to the officers, nor are the officers getting in proportion to the men to whom you are voting Grants this afternoon. We ask you to pay the men whom they led on the same terms as the average officer in the Army,

The PRIME MINISTER: The impression left on the minds of those who heard the Debate was that the soldiers were being deprived of something to which they were entitled. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am glad to hear that denial, and I hope that the denial will appear in all the Press of the Kingdom, because that was the impression left by the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. J. Jones) who has just sat down. From the speech of the hon. Member one would have thought that we are voting £580,000 to the generals and the admirals, and that we are not voting any gratuities to the soldiers, and that we are depriving the widows of allowances.

Mr. J. JONES: What I said was that we are not making adequate allowance to the fathers, mothers, and widows of the soldiers.

The PRIME MINISTER: We had a discussion the other day on pensions and allowances, and in that way we are voting £ 100,000,000 a year. The hon. Member has now made a very different statement. If he had said, "You are voting £580,000 to these great men, and you are only voting £ 100,000,000 per annum to be distributed among the widows and orphans who are suffering, "it was open for him to say so. It is only fair to state the facts, and let him base his denunciation on the facts. I congratulate him on one thing, and that is that speeches of this kind which are made outside by others are made by him here where they can be contradicted. That is valuable. If he addressed a crowd, and I suppose he does address crowds, and made a statement of that kind in the vague indefinite language in which he has made the statement to-day, I am sure one could draw no-other inference except that the money is all voted to generals and to big people. What about the £100,000,000 voted for pensions? I ask him the next time he makes a statement outside to say that while we are voting £580,000 to the generals and the big people, we are voting £100,000,000 per annum for pensions, and he will find a very different reception. We have considered the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs). He himself sees that we have confined the Vote of Thanks to a few names. We thought it the best way to have one Motion of thanks for all the officers and men, and I am certain that all those men will be proud to be included in that vote of thanks. We have put the special vote of thanks in this substantial form. I agree that it is a departure from precedent, and I think the Motion which we make to-day is much more elaborate and much more searching and comprehensive than any Motion that has ever been made before. On the whole I think we were right in the form in which we decided to accord the vote of thanks to the officers and men of the Navy.

Colonel BURN: I do not want to delay the House in coming to a conclusion on this matter, but I want to appeal on behalf of the men of the Royal Engineers who
joined the Army from the Post Office. These men have not had war gratuities, and I claim that they have every right to them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I have allowed too much liberty. We cannot have a rehash of the pensions debate

Question put,
That a sum, not exceeding £ 585,000, be granted to His Majesty, to be issued to those officers who commanded and directed His forces by sea, on land, and in the air, in recognition of their eminent services during the late War.

The Committee divided:' Ayes, 272; Noes, 54.

Division No. 86.]
AYES.
[7.39 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Jodrell, N. P.


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)
Johnstone, J.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Ainsworth, Capt. C.
Craig, Lt.-Com. N. (Isle of Thanet)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Amery, Lieut.-Colonel L. C. M. S.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Curzon, Commander Viscount
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)


Atkey, A. R.
Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)


Baird, John Lawrence
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Joynson-Hicks, William


Baldwin, Stanley
Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)
Kellaway, Frederick George


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Balfour, Sir Robert (Partick)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Kerr-Smiley, Major P.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Kidd, James


Barker, Major R.
Doyle, N. Grattan
King, Commander Douglas


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. N. (Gorbals)
Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Knight, Capt. E. A.


Barnett, Captain Richard W.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Knights, Captain H.


Barnston, Major Harry
Falcon, Captain M.
Larmor, Sir J.


Barrand, A. R.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Law, A. J. (Rochdale)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Lindsay, William Arthur


Beck, Arthur Cecil
FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Lloyd, George Butler


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter


Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W.
Forster, Rt. Hon. H. W.
Lorden, John William


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Foxcroft, Captain C.
Lort-Williams, J.


Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Bennett, T. J.
Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)


Betterton, H. B.
Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor)
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)


Birchall, Major J. D.
Gaddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Macquisten, F. A.


Bird, Alfred
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Maddocks, Henry


Blades, Sir George R.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mallalieu, Frederick William


Blair, Major Reginald
Gllmour, Lieut-Colonel John.
Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Glyn, Major R.
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.
Manville, Edward


Bowles, Col. H. F.
Gray, Major E.
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Middlebrook, Sir William


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.


Brackenbury, Col. H. L.
Gregory, Holman
Mitchell, William Lane-


Bridgeman, William Clive
Greig, Colonel James William
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Gretton, Col. John
Morris, Richard


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Griggs, Sir Peter
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)


Bruton, Sir J.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Hacking, Captain D. H.
Mosley, Oswald


Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.
Hallwood, A.
Mount, William Arthur


Bull, Right Hon. Sir William James
Hall, Capt. D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred. (Dulwich)
Murchison, C. K.


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)
Murray, William (Dumfries)


Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverten)
Henderson, Major V. L.
Nail, Major Joseph


Carr, W. T.
Hennessy, Major G.
Neal, Arthur


Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)


Casey, T. W.
Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Higham, C. F. (Islington, S.)
Nield, Sir Herbert


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh (Oxford U.)
Hilder, Lieutenant-Colonel F.
Oman, C. W. C.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm.,W.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon, William


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hood, Joseph
Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)


Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Parker, James


Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Parry, Major Thomas Henry


Clough, R.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Horne, Edgar (Guildlord)
Perring, William George


Cockerill, Brlg.-Gen. G. K.
Hudson, R. M.
Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)


Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Polleck, Sir Ernest Murray


Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.
Pownall, Lieut-Colonel Assheton


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Inskip, T. W. H.
Pratt, John William


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon, Ernest G.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
Jesson, C.
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Purchase, H. G.
Smith, Harold (Warrington)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Rae, H. Norman
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.


Raeburn, Sir William
Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Wigan, Brigadier-General John Tyson


Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.
Stanton, Charles Butt
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Reid, D. D.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Willey, Lt.-Col. F. V.


Remer, J. B.
Stewart, Gershom
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Renwick, G.
Sugden, W. H.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H,


Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)
Sutherland, Sir William
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)


Rodger, A. K.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Rothschild, Lionel de
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Wolmer, Viscount


Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)


Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund
Tickler, Thomas George
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Rutherford, Col. Sir J, (Darwen)
Townley, Maximilan G.
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Tryon, Major George Clement
Worsfold, T. Cato


Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
Turton, Edmund Russborough
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)
Waddington, R.
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Walker, Colonel William Hall
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)
Walters, Sir John Tudor
Younger, Sir George


Seager, Sir William
Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Capt.


Seddon, James
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand)



Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)
Weston, Colonel John W.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hayward, Major Evan
Sitch, C. H.


Arnold, Sydney
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Briant, F.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Spencer, George A.


Bromfield, W.
Hogge, J. M.
Swan, J. E. C.


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Cairns, John
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cape, Tom
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, Colonel W. (Plaistow)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Tootill, Robert


Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Waterson, A. E.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Newbould, A. E.
Wignall, James


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
O'Connor, T. P.
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Robertson, J.
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, c.)


Grundy, T. W.
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Col.


Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Sexton, James
Wedgwood and Lt.-Com. Kenworthy.


Hallas, E.
Short, A. (Wednesbury)

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

Resolved
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, the sum of £585,000be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[The, Prime. Minister.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WELSH CHURCH (TEMPORALITIES) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The title of this Bill may, perhaps, recall to Members the old and somewhat belated controversies of the past, but I hope that the Bill will remove once for ail those old struggles and differences, and enable the various Christian denominations in Wales to work together in the smoothest and most friendly manner. This Bill has been rendered necessary purely by the War and by the changed circumstances which the War has brought about. It makes absolutely no change in any of the principles or any of the fundamentals contained in the Act of 1914. We have, to recognise that by the passing of that Act Disestablishment and Disendowment have become accomplished facts. But, of course, changed circumstances require changes of detail, and, therefore, it became necessary to inquire into the whole position, in order to see what the existing circumstances are and whether there was anything necessary in equity and justice in order to enable the principles of the Act of 1914 to be carried put. Apparently, judging as far as one is able to judge from public utterings and writings,
the impression was that the Church had been a great sufferer through the War. But on examination of the whole position, and of the Act of 1914, and on consideration of the more doubtful expressions contained in it, I think that I shall be able to satisfy the House that it was not the Church that suffered, and that its position, in my judgment, and, I think, in the judgment of most people who examined the figures, is considerably better. It is really the Welsh county councils and Welsh Church Commissioners to whose assistance the State will have to go. I think that I shall be able to show the House that unless the State gives that assistance to the Welsh Church Commissioners and thereby to the Welsh county councils, it would be quite impossible for the Act of 1914 to be carried out at all.
There are three great differences which affect the financial position with regard to the Church proper. In the first place, there is the value of the tithe. When the Act of 1914 was passed, tithe then stood at a figure of about £77. It has since risen on the septennial average to £123 this year, and those whom I have consulted who are able to form an opinion tell me that next year it will certainly not be less than £132 and will probably be £136. The House may recollect that by the Tithe Act of last year provision was made that tithe can only be collected at £109 for the next seven years. So you have this position that on the septennial average tithe next year will be £136, and the tithe-owner will be prevented from collecting more than £109, and according to the original Act—that is to say, according to the time at which commutation has taken place in 1915, it would only be about £77. In addition to that the Act of 1914 provides that the price paid for the commuted tithe rent-charge, the capitalised value, is to be calculated on the 3½per cent. tables. That was quite right in 1914, but to-day, of course, it involves a very heavy burden upon those who have to pay the money and who cannot possibly borrow at less than 5 per cent. In addition to that, when you deal with the payments necessary for the redemption of the loans, necessary to pay the price for commutation and reckoning the length of period over which that redemption must run you have now to take into consideration the fact that the Income Tax on the surplus value of the Welsh Commissioners is 6s. in the £ instead of 1s. 2d.
8.0 P.M.
Those were three very material changes which operate in the circumstances as they now exist. There were two matters which were doubtful as matters of law in the Act of 1914. The first doubt was as to what are known as lapsed interests. It appeared to be taken for granted by everybody that the date of Disestablishment having to be postponed owing to the War from some period in 1915 until next year, some five years, a number of the then existing interests would have ceased to be existing interests at the date of commutation. I looked into the matter when I was first asked to take charge of this Bill, and I formed the conclusion that it was very doubtful indeed whether any interests had lapsed at all, having regard to the wording of the Act of 1914, and I am now fortified by the opinion of the Law Officers that in fact there are no lapsed interests at all. and that the Church are entitled to-day, if the Act of 1914 stands unchanged, to claim every interest and the value of every interest that they could claim at the date of Disestablishment in 1915. Therefore the position was that although it was arguable, although the point might be raised as against the Church that there were lapsed interests, still, in the view of those able to judge, there were no lapsed interests at all. We have thought it right to approach this whole question from the point of view that there are no lapsed interests, and that the Church is entitled to the whole of the interests that existed at the time of the passing of the Act. The other point of view was whether the Tithe Act of 1918 governed the provisions of the Welsh Church Act of 1914. If it did, then the Church would only been titled to have the tithe rent-charge commuted at the annual price of £109 instead of the annual price of £106. On that point, also, I have had my opinion fortified by the Law Officers of the Crown, who hold the view, as I myself did, that, in fact, on the interpretation of the Act of 1914, the Church is entitled to have the tithe commuted at the annual value at the date of commutation, which will be next year, and that in all probability will be £136. That being the position, we Have approached the matter from the point of view that the Church is entitled, as we believe in law it is entitled, if the Act stands unchanged, and without bringing in any amending Bill, to tithe commuted at the value of £136. Those two questions out of the way, the point arose, What was the position?
We had very careful actuarial calculations made, and the position appears to be this: We had to take into consideration, of course, the period of time over which the debt incurred by the Welsh Commissioners and the county councils could be redeemed, and we concluded that if it were possible so to arrange it, they ought not to be asked to wait longer than thirty years for the full benefit of the tithe rent-charge which they had purchased. Therefore, we have gone on the basis of a period of thirty years.
What is the result? In order to pay for the commuted tithe rent-charge and other commuted property of the Church, a sum would be required of £3,400,000, and the point arose what were the Welsh Commissioners to do to raise that sum? The whole of the property which they possess has been carefully valued by the actuary. He has had to go upon the assumption that as soon, as the tithe rent - charge is commuted it ceased to be a tithe rent-charge attached to a benefice. The point is this, that so long as the tithe rent-charge is a rent charge attached to a benefice it pays only half the rates and the Treasury pay the other half. The moment it ceases to be so attached, the tithe itself is liable for the whole of the rates and the Treasury no longer pay any proportion. Assuming that still to be the case, the whole of the property which will be transferred to the Welsh Commissioners, having regard to the amount of Income Tax and other charges, would be security at the outside for only £2,150,000. They have security for the borrowing of £2,150,000, and they are liable to have to raise £3,400,000. The way we propose to deal with that is this: We propose by the Bill to make commutation compulsory instead of optional, and we then propose that so long as the tithe rent-charge remains vested in the Welsh Commissioners, so long as it is not actually handed over to the county councils, it is to be deemed to be tithe rent-charge attached to a benefice, and by that means they will be relieved of half their rates. That will enable them to borrow another £260,000, and that will reduce the deficiency from £1,250,000 to £1,000,000. They are, therefore, now faced with this position, that they can borrow £2,400,000 and they have to pay £3,400,000.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt recognise that
these financial questions are very difficult to follow. Does that mean that the Treasury will pay another £250,000 to the county councils in relief of rates?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes.

Lord R. CECIL: So that the sum paid to the county councils is £1,250,000, not £1,000,000?

Mr. SHORTT: That will be so. In some way they have to provide £1,000,000. There is no specific means provided in the Act of 1914 whereby they can raise money in any way for any deficiency. Of course, they could ask the county councils to levy a rate for the purpose, but that has only to be mentioned to be dismissed as hopelessly impossible. Therefore, the only position is that they should have something corresponding to the Treasury guarantee which the Act of 1914 gives them, and that the Treasury, in the hope of securing peace in Wales and friendship among all parties—[Laughter]. I really do not know why there should be jeering about it. It is with that hope that the Bill is produced, and I hope it may succeed.

Sir EDGAR JONES: It does not come from Wales.

Mr. SHORTT: It is in the hope of get-ting that friendship and co-operation and co-ordination, that the British Treasury proposes to come to the assistance of the Welsh Commissioners by the grant of the necessary £1,000,000. That is the whole position, and that is the main object of the Bill.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say where the £1,000,000 is going—to the Welsh local authorities or to the Welsh Church?

Mr. SHORTT: It is going to pay a debt which the Welsh. Commissioners are bound to pay to the Welsh Church under an Act already in existence. The Welsh Church is entitled by law to say one of two things, "Either you must let the Act of 1914 drop altogether, in which case there is an end of Disestablishment and Disendowment, or else you must carry that Act out and you have to pay us £3,400,000." The £1,000,000 will go towards the payment of that £3,400,000. Whether it is a payment to the church or to the county councils I will leave my hon. Friend to judge.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Is the basis of commutation for these life interests at
£136 or at the £109, at which sum tithe rent was sterilised throughout England and Wales, I think, last year?

Mr. SHORTT: As I tried to explain, after consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown we came to the conclusion that the Church is entitled to it at £136, that the sterilising Act of 1918 does not govern the Act of 1914. We have made arrangements that the county councils will be enabled to redeem in thirty years the debt which they have incurred. The income they will receive from the tithe-rent charges and the surplus of that income, accumulating as it will, will enable them to pay off the debt in a period of thirty' years. So far as the county councils are concerned the position is that whereas under the provisions that could have been made, had there been no war—no enormous rise in the price of wheat and bread and so on—they could have cleared off the debt by 1941; as it is to-day under the changed circumstance, they will have to wait till 1950 before they clear off their debt, but they will then come into £200,000 a year instead of £150,000 a year. That, to put it briefly, is the financial position. Broadly speaking, either the Act of 1914 must be dropped or repealed, or else this £1,000,000 must be found. We have come to the conclusion, and I think the whole country will support us in it, that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the £1,000,000 ought to be found, and no attempt made to reopen once more the old sore struggle for Disestablishment.
There are certain other details, but they are all details necessary for carrying out of the 1914 Act. The date of Disestablishment, for example, is set over till next year. That date has been chosen after full consultation with the Welsh Church Commissioners and the representative body who have to carry out all the details. I am quite sure that owing to the work that has to be done by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and with the depletion of staff throughout the War, they could not possibly be ready at any date this year. You will have to take next year's price as the commutation price. It comets into force on 1st January. We thought we would then, choose the most convenient date, and the 31st March is the date most convenient for adjustment, book-keeping and so on. There is a provision to continue the life of the Welsh Commissioners. The Welsh Commissioners automatically cease to
exist on the 31st December of this year, and we make provision by which they are to carry on the work. I think, with regard to all the other matters, that they are really domestic matters. For instance, in the case of marriage, owing to the wording of the Act of 1914, in a large parish with four or five curates the vicar would be the only one able to solemnise marriage, and provision is made by the Bill so that the curates may do so. There is a provision also to free the Church to some extent from the control of the Charity Commissioners, and other matters which, as I have said, are domestic matters with which I need not trouble the House.
That is the Bill. I hope and believe it will be accepted by the House, and I hope it will be accepted as a final settlement of an old and somewhat bitter controversy. We certainly offer it in that spirit. We believe, and 1 certainly for one believe, that there has grown up of late years all over the country, and more especially in Wales, a stronger feeling of spiritual brotherhood among all denominations than has existed before. We want, if possible, to foster that spirit and to encourage it and to remove from its path every possible obstacle that may exist. I believe that until the provisions of the Act of 1914 are carried out there still remains an obstacle in the way, and the more generous the spirit in which it is carried out the more friendly will be the feeling that will continue to exist when Disestablishment is an accompished fact. I ask the House, therefore, to view this, because, after all, the generosity that we have shown the Church is not so very great. The generosity we have shown has been to take as a legal right, an established legal right, what we are advised could be established as a legal right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear," and laughter.] That is really all. I do not know what is meant by those jeers. The Church apparently were unaware of that because they put out a number of S.O.S. signals for months past which were quite unnecessary. An unfortunate result of that is to make people think that the Church were asking for some change in the Act of 1914, for some fundamental change, and if they had asked for any fundamental change they would not have got it. That generous treatment is given in the hope that it will produce real true brotherly feeling, and in spite of the somewhat jeering laughter with which some of my sentences have been greeted, 1 believe that the feeling of the whole of the House will be that this
ought to be done, and I am satisfied the feeling of the country will be that this ought to be done, and therefore I ask the House to accept it.

Lord HUGH CECIL: The House is very much indebted to the Home Secretary for his very lucid explanation of a very intricate matter. I have heard this Bill explained by more persons than one during the last twenty-four hours, and the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is far the clearest and most intelligible to which I have listened. But it differs in one important respect from the other explanations in mentioning the very important opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown, from which it is clear, and indeed as the Home Secretary states it is clear, that the Church gets nothing whatever out of this Bill except the rights already legally assured to it in the Act of 1914. That is a very important statement, and I cannot help thinking that it would have been a good plan if that had been made as clear by an equally lucid explanation, for example to the Welsh bishops when they had been in conference with the members of the Government on this subject. They were quite unaware of the fact which the Home Secretary has so lucidly explained to the House. My right hon. Friend was surprised because a good many of his observations were received with laughter and ironical cheering. I can assure my right hon. Friend that that ironical cheering was not directed against himself, and we saw nothing worthy of derision in his language or attitude, but we had a certain amusement, tinged perhaps by bitterness, in the reflection that he is a colleague of the Leader of the House, and when we recollect what my right hon. Friend has said on the subject of Welsh Disendowment and which I suspect my right hon. Friend would now much rather forget. When the Home Secretary speaks eloquently and hopes, and we all echo his hope, that there may be a great spirit of fraternity among Christian bodies, I agree that that is a desirable thing, but at the same time I do not see why financing Welsh county councils will particularly produce fraternity among Christian bodies. It is appropriate that Welsh county councils should be able to pay their statutory debts, but there seems a certain inappropriateness in making that the theme for a discourse on Christian fraternity. If any good had been
done or any benefit had been rendered either to the religious interests of the Church or to the religious interests of Nonconformity by this Bill, then I could have understood this thought of fraternity and Christian obligation. But is the common honesty of a county council defraying its legal debt without any regard to the interests of religion or any bearing beyond the general bearing that common honesty has on religion really an occasion which gives the right hon. Gentleman a special title to appeal to Christians to forget their disagreements and controversies of the past? In one sense I hope that the controversies, both in England, and Wales, between the Church and Nonconformity may be buried, and I do earnestly desire that a spirit of Christian unity may remain among them, but I do not think this Bill will help it. I am quite sure that the original Act which this Bill seeks to amend did a very ill-service to Christian unity, and sowed the seeds of a bitterness which nothing but Christian sentiments and wiser and better Churchmen and Nonconformists would prevent coming to fruition.
I have no quarrel beyond the old quarrel with the Liberal members of the Government in respect of this Bill. Their position, I think, is open to the criticisms that have often been made on the question of Disendowment, but it is open to no criticism in respect of this Bill. They are perfectly consistent. I will say a. word later as to some arguments which I think should have more weight with them than they appear to have. I think my right hon. Friends, the Unionist leaders, are in a totally different position from the Liberal members of the Government. They are deeply pledged to the position that Disendowment is confiscation, and that it is an injury to religion. That my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House fully recognises. I know, because I have had the advantage of approaching him privately, and was obliged for the courtesy which he has always showed. He gave a promise on 21st April, 1914, that:
If a Unionist Government is returned to power I am sure that one of the first things that Government will do will be to restore to the Church of Wales the funds of which you have deprived her."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1914, col. 878, Vol. 61.]
My right hon. Friend takes this view. Though this Government absolutely depends on Unionist support—for it would immediately cease to exist if he and his colleagues resigned—nevertheless that
pledge has wholly ceased to be binding, and I am rather inclined to think that my right hon. Friend's explanation would qualify him for a place in Pascal's Provincial Letters amongst those who found excuses. But I will return to the question of how far my right hon. Friend is bound by that pledge before I sit down. Let me first advert to the general aspect, because you cannot judge of the importance of the pledge till you judge in what general light my right hon. Friend treated this Bill. My right hon. Friend made a number of speeches on this Bill. I cannot pretend to have had the pleasure of reading them all, but I have read one of them, or a part of one, which, like all my right hon. Friend's, was a very good speech. It is the same speech in which he gave the promise I have just quoted. He concluded with that promise, but he said a great deal before he came to that, and these are some of the things he said. He said:
There is no doubt, if what is being done to this Chruch were being done to any other body, it would be admitted to be wrong, and the fact that it is being done from party motives and by the full use of the party machine makes it not less but more, undisguisedly robbery."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1914, col 872. Vol. 61.]
The Home Secretary has told us that this Bill is necessary to carry out the original Act, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House sees no impropriety in remaining a member of the Government which is going to pass a Bill necessary to carry out a policy of undisguised robbery. I cannot think that that is a decision which will raise his own personal credit or the reputation of politicians generally in respect to grave matters. In the same speech he also said:
I should like to go a step further. I hold that Parliament has absolutely no right to take these Endowments. But even if it had, and if there were some justification, I can imagine nothing more unwise than that these Endowments should be taken away."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1914, col. 872, Vol. 61.]
He ended up that part of his argument in this way:
Why are they taking them from the Church? No one will deny that to deprive the Church in Wales of these funds is to weaken that Church. It will, therefore, injure religion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 21st April, 1914, col. 873. Vol. 61.]
My right hon. Friend is going to be a party to carrying out a policy which, by his own account, is, first, undisguised robbery, and, secondly, an injury to religion, and he is going to do that rather than to give up his place in the Govern-
ment that is a party to such a transaction. His Liberal colleagues are acting in perfect good faith. They believe their policy is justified, but he is acting knowing what he is doing. He is carrying out robbery, knowing it to be robbery. He is injuring religion knowing that he does injure religion, having said so, and I cannot think that that is a justifiable attitude for any public man to take up. Nor is this the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman alone; it is that of the whole of the Unionist Members of the Government. The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Long) spoke in the same Debate, but on an earlier day, the 20th April. It appears that Sir John Simon, who had just spoken, had pretended to think that the accusation of robbery was not one that could be seriously maintained, and the First Lord of the Admiralty replied:
A moment ago, at the conclusion of his speech, he (Sir John Simon) did not forget to suggest that we adopted a form of opposition outside this House in regard to this Hill very different from the opposition which we offer inside, and he suggested that our statement that this Bill proposes to rob the four Welsh dioceses of the English Church in Wales is a statement which we keep for what he is pleased to term our Church defence platforms, and do not make on the floor of this House. It has been made on the floor of the House time after time, and it has been the burden of our song, and it has been the centre and foundation of speeches from this side of the House during all these Debates."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1914, col. 642, Vol. 61.]
Yet my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty do not feel the smallest scruple or uneasiness at proceeding to pass a Bill which is necessary to carry out the policy which they repeatedly and over and over again—they and all their party—qualified as undisguised robeery and as an injury to religion. In the light of those quotations, to come back to the pledge that when a Unionist Government was in power Dis-endowment should be repealed, my right hon. Friend thinks that he is emancipated From that pledge, because, before the General Election, he said, "If there is to be a Coalition you cannot expect—it is impossible—that we can go to the country with precisely the same policy which we should adopt if we were going as a Unionist party alone." That is a very reasonable statement, but would anyone believe that that reasonable statement was intended to cover the adoption and acceptance of a policy of undisguised robbery? Is that the sort of moral give and take
that is to pass between politicians for political objects? Are these the sort of moral sacrifices that are to be made for the purpose of political co-operation? Action of that kind injures those who do it, and it injures the public life in which it is done. In my view, a sharp distinction ought to be drawn between what can be sacrificed for the purpose of political cooperation and what can not. Moral issues ought not to be lightly raised. In the heat of controversy perhaps they are often too easily raised, but if they are raised, those who raise them should recognise that they are under an obligation to act with that degree of fidelity to the moral propositions laid down which is required from all honest men by all honest men in respect to fidelity to moral propositions. That is quite a different sort of fidelity from that which is required about party allegiance or mere matters of policy. But my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has, if I may say so, inverted this salutary rule. He has exacted something from his Liberal colleagues. He has exacted, for example, a substantial measure of Colonial Preference. I greatly misunderstand the attitude of a large part of the Coalition Liberals in this House if I am wrong in saying that they would have far more willingly restored the Endowments to the Welsh Church—an act in their language of generosity, but in ours of justice—than they would have adopted a policy of Colonial Preference, but that did not weigh with my right hon. Friend. He cared, I suppose, a great deal more about Colonial Preference than he cared about hindering an undisguised robbery which is an injury to religion. To him, that was a much greater matter. He therefore insisted upon having his own way, and he had it. I do not complain at all. The policy is one which I thought reasonable and one which ought to be adopted, but I think, if there were to be compromises and sacrifices, the compromises and sacrifices should have been made where they could be made on a mere matter of policy and not on a plain moral issue formally and elaborately declared by the leaders of the Unionist party.
There is only one thing I would like to say to my right hon. Friends who are Liberals, and who are in a different position, and no animadversion on their personal conduct would be at all reasonable, but I would put it to them whether, on
their own principles, this Bill might not have been more generous, as they would call it, than it is. I am told—these figures are not always understood, but I am told —that what practically the net result of the Bill will be is that a sum of £960,000 will be taken from the Church in the end, allowing for all these payments that are provided for in this Bill, and devoted to secular purposes. Does that seem a very desirable thing to do? I know my right hon. Friends think that by some ancient historical title the £960,000 belongs to the State. I do not agree with them, but I am not going to argue that matter now, but I would ask whether there is not something rather mean and rather impious in at this moment, just when we have come forth delivered from a great war, taking £960,000 from preaching the Gospel and giving it to the purposes of the Welsh county councils?
The Prime Minister is pre-eminently associated with emphasising the duty of national thanksgiving. We have in every corporate way made acts of national thanksgiving. Just now we have voted gifts of money, as the natural companion of Votes of Thanks. When dealing in religious matters, it seems that our Votes of Thanks are not accompanied by grants of money, but by taking money away from those purposes and giving it to other things. I confess I think that is very unseemly. A sum which is very important to a little body doing a religious work is very small from the point of view of the State. Lord Inver forth, in moments of eccentricity, has spent more than that in one day—£960,000 is less than a quarter of what we have been told is the daily expenditure of the country since the Armistice, or the sum we spend between breakfast and lunch. I think it is a pity that we should inaugurate the period of peace by cramping the preaching of the Gospel. I cannot express, therefore, any gratitude for what this Bill may do. This Bill will mark one stage further down in the reputation of public men. I am sure, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in future has to deal with other matters—let us say labour troubles—he will find a certain difficulty arising, partly on account of the manner in which he has treated his obligations to the Welsh Church. He may have to say to owners of property and capitalists that they can count on him to protect them from robbery, but can any language be more vehement than that which I have quoted in respect of the
Welsh Church, and would it not occur to most of those who are asked to trust to such promises, that if it should happen that a political campaign might take place, which made it rather convenient to forget all about those pledges, those pledges would be of no avail?
The strange doctrine has been contributed to casuistry that if you give a rather ambiguous and meaningless statement at a General Election you are emancipated from all the promises you made before. That would apply just as much to anyone else who is the recipient of Government promises. Labour or capital might be put off with the statement, "I said something which, properly understood, meant I was not going to do what I promised to do, and therefore I am free." 1 believe it to be profoundly mischievous that a great political party and great political leaders should support by that sort of language and that sort of argument a particular position in respect to a great public question, and then, when they are in office, they should be concerned about all sorts of matters—concerned with raising their own salaries, as they were doing last night—but should not be concerned in saving the Church from the robbery they had previously denounced. I believe it lowers public life, and I am sure everywhere where the Church is honoured, everywhere where these things arc taken seriously and felt to be great questions and great issues, it will always be remembered against my right hon. Friend and his Unionist colleagues that they have basely betrayed the Church under whose banner they were not ashamed to fight.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I intervene with some temerity in this Debate, because what I conceive to be a. promising rift in the Coalition may be healed by my intervention. I must say the Noble Lord's description of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House as a "Jesuit Father" somewhat alarmed me. All I have to say about it is this, that during the time I have occupied this seat since January last his conduct has been distinguished by frankness, by candour, and by scrupulous attention to anything approaching a promise he may have made. However, I do not rise with any other intention but to put as well as I can, from this maze of figures, which I confess I have not been able to follow, what I conceive to be the public position, as apart from that of the Church in Wales
or the public bodies concerned in the Disendowment. The Noble Lord is under the impression that, in regard to Disendowment, the Church in Wales has still a great grievance. I am quite unable to follow that contention. So far as I have been able to follow the figures at all, it seems to me the net effect in 1950 will be that there will be no Disendowment at all of the Church in Wales.

Lord H. CECIL: Why?

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am trying to explain. I do not suppose that view of mine will please many of my hon. Friends in Wales. I base it on figures as given by the Home Secretary, and given in the White Paper, as I understand from the very summary perusal I have been able to give to it. What is the position with regard to the tithe rent-charge, which, after all, is the main source of the revenue. When the Church Act was passed in 1914 it was contemplated that somewhere in 1915 the process of Disendowment would begin, and at that time the tithe rent-charge stood at about seventy-seven. The War came, and the price of tithe, as we know, soared up so much that last year, in order to stop what was getting a real scandal, the Act was passed which stabilised the tithe at 109. What we call the market price of the tithe has run up to about 136 to 132. During the whole time from 1914 to 1919 the Church in Wales has been in receipt of the whole of the proceeds of these tithes at 136 until stabilised at 109— [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—or whatever it ran up to. It is constantly rising. It was not 136 when it started, but it went up to that. At any rate, on the average there has been a gain of about £186,000. The rise was very rapid.

An HON. MEMBER: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say they paid more than 109 at any one time? They never did.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I understand the tithe market rate this year was 136. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not!"] It is about 132. or 136 now. [An HON. MEMBER: "Next year!"] I will take it at 109 as against 77. They received that sum for five years. As I understand it— and indeed I think the Home Secretary said so—they are going to commute the interest at 136. But the county councils will not touch this money until 1950. When the matter is gone into on an actuarial basis I think
it will be found that, at any rate, by 1950, there has been a very small fraction indeed of Disendowment.
But here is my point—my public point. There has been an attempt, a successful attempt it seems, between those responsible for the Government, the Prime Minister and his colleagues from Wales, to effect a settlement. Of course it has been settled outside this House. We are entitled to hear the whole thing. The House of Commons is not bound by anything the Prime Minister has done. Of course, we know what the result will be, but at any rate the duty of the House of Commons is to insist, in all these financial matters, that whatever arrangements are made outside, full disclosure shall be made here before any decision is ratified. Why should the public purse be depleted to the extent of a million in order to settle a difficulty between public bodies in Wales and the Church in Wales in regard to the Disendowment of the Church there? Suppose at some date—it may not be a very distant date—the question of Disestablishment and Disendowment of the English Church comes up. What sort of precedent are we setting up now? This is a very serious matter as between the Church of England and its Endowment, and here we are deliberately setting up a precedent of the use of the National Treasury, to which all the component parts of the United Kingdom contribute, in order to settle the matter of the Church in Wales. That is the House of Commons point which I am taking. What may happen in the future, if this deal—or whatever else you like to call it—is passed through the House of Commons without a protest being made? It shall not be without, at all events, a protest from this side of the House. I am not very much interested as to Disendowment. Disestablishment, I feel, must always carry some measure of Disendowment, but the exact amount has never been a matter which appealed to me very strongly from one point or another. I quite agree that the attitude taken up toy the Noble Lord makes it of no use to try to make any settlement whatever.

Lord H. CECIL: But there is the attitude of the Leader of the House!

Sir D. MACLEAN: The Noble Lord does not seem to recognise at all that there is an Act on the Statute Book.

Lord H. CECIL: But the Home Secretary said that that Act could not be carried, out unless something of this kind was done.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I must leave the Home Secretary to explain that himself. I am here to discharge what I think is the duty of any Member sitting on these benches, and holding the views that I do, and that is to make a strong protest against the National Treasury being used to settle what, after all, should be a matter to be settled by the public bodies in Wales with the Welsh Church. The House of Commons, in my judgment, should intervene under the circumstances in that dispute which ought to have been settled as between the public, bodies in Wales, and without the intervention of the House of Commons.

Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: The general view of all parties in Wales is, in my opinion, that the Welsh Church should not be placed in a worse position as a result of the War than it would have been if there had been no war. That is, I think, a very reasonable and sound position for the public and all parties to take up. What are the facts? If the Disendowment Clauses were entirely repealed, the Welsh Church would still be in a worse position than it was before the War. In other words, the Welsh Church, with her Endowments and after-war conditions and prices, would be in a worse position than she would be without her Endowments and with pre-war conditions and prices. It must always be remembered that the Welsh Church is and always has been financially a very poor Church. No less than seventy-five incumbents in Wales receive to-day less than £150 per annum from Endowments. This Bill is an equitable attempt on the part of His Majesty's Government to adjust the financial difficulties due to the War having been so very prolonged. Substantial justice is done by the Bill to the Welsh county councils, as the advance of a million sterling releases them from the necessity of raising a special rate to carry out the terms of the Welsh Church Act so far as it applies to the property they are taking over. The Bill also puts the county councils in possession of this handsome amount of property at a very much earlier period than they could possibly get possession of it without this Bill. I say, therefore, the Bill, so far as the county councils and the ratepayers of
Wales are concerned, does substantial justice. The Bill does some justice to the Welsh Church. For instance, I listened with interest to what the Home Secretary said about lapsed interests. But in any case, whatever the law may be held to be as to the right or otherwise of lapsed interests, the Bill makes the position of the Welsh Church absolutely clear and above dispute. It is an advantage to have a Clause in the Bill clearing up any ambiguity on this head.
The Bill includes a number of administrative Amendments which have proved of very considerable value to the Welsh Church. It is of vital importance to the Welsh Church and Welsh Churcnmen to know as promptly as possible the future financial position, so that they may have time before the date of Disestablishment to make all the necessary arrangements. The Welsh Church is in a very serious position. There is the impossibility at the present time of raising large sums of money to replace the money lost by Disendowment. If there had been no war, in my view, it would have been a comparatively easy matter to have raised the necessary money to replace these. Endowments; but the position now is entirely different. We had an example a short time ago in the case of the Church of England. That Church decided that they would raise £5,000,000 in the whole of England and Wales. They brought forward a great scheme, and I think it was magnificently advertised, and one came across very able advertisements setting out the full position, and they asked for £5,000,000 sterling. After a most extensive propaganda, the whole of this wealthy country produced less than 20 per cent. of what they asked for. That was practically a fiasco, and when you have that experience what chance has poor little Wales of raising this money to replace the Endowments?
Wales, like the Welsh Church and other people, has to face the great rise in prices. The Church cannot continue to pay incumbents at the old rates. I have already mentioned how very low the incumbents stipends are at the present time, and there are a very large number who have very little more than the figure I have mentioned. If this Bill is passed before the Recess it will greatly assist in putting the affairs of the Welsh Church in order. As Chairman of the Finance Committee of the representative body of the Church in Wales I can speak
with some knowledge of the actual position. I wish to appeal to the Government to favourably consider two Amendments in Committee. The first is as regards churchyards which are hallowed by centuries, and which I hope the Government will see their way to leave in possession of the Church, making provision for full security for the Nonconformist rights and feelings. I do not think there will be any difficulty in providing a satisfactory settlement which will meet the views of Wales on this subject.
9.0 P.M.
The other matter which I hope the Government will favourably consider is to secure to the Church the Endowments other than tithe. This is not a large figure, and I believe the total value of those Endowments is comparatively a few thousands a year, and I think the Government might fairly meet our appeal in this direction. The Bill is primarily a Welsh question. We have heard a great deal in the last few months of self-determination. All we ask is that this shall be left to us to settle in Wales. The Welsh Parliamentary party accept the Bill, and we Welshmen are grateful to our English friends for their help in the past, and we look forward to their help in the future in raising the very considerable sums of money that will still be required by the Welsh Church. We heard a very able speech from the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil), with much of which I was in agreement, but not all. I hope they will permit us to settle this matter now and get the Bill passed at once. I may state that the Parliamentary Committee of the governing body of the Welsh Church has given the matter full consideration, and they were empowered by the governing body to deal with it, and to-day they have passed a resolution, which I will read to the House, as it sets out the position of the Welsh Church:
This Committee, having carefully considered the provisions of the Welsh Church Bill, while reaffirming its conviction against the principle of Disendowment, realises so strongly the urgent need of an immediate settlement that it is prepared to accept the Bill, although regretting the non-inclusion in the Bill of the retention of ancient and unenclosed churchyards, and endowment other than tithe
So that, whilst there is no bargain of any kind, and I would like to make that absolutely clear, here is a settlement proposed that is agreeable—not that either side may be absolutely pleased with it, but it does meet the views of the great mass of Welshmen, and I hope that it will receive
the support of this House. In these days of unrest all resources are needed for carrying on the work of religion. If the Government can see their way to grant the two concessions I have mentioned, they will go a long way to reconcile Churchmen to Disendowment, which they hate so much. It would do much to end the bitterness caused by old religious controversies, and would greatly facilitate all religious bodies in Wales working more closely together for the good of all Wales. It is for these reasons that I commend this Bill to the House, and I hope that by passing it into law we may at last bring to an end a controversy that has caused more "friction in Wales than residents in England can understand, or probably believe. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: I cordially agree with the remarks of the hon. Baronet who said that he did not want the Welsh Church to be any worse off than before the War. I am in exactly the same position, but I do not want the Church to be any better off as well. I believe this measure of Disestablishment should be accompanied by a measure of Disendowment, and in that I am just as conscientious in my opinion as any hon. Member could be. The Welsh Church Act, after it had been passed, had its operation suspended by the Suspensory Bill. But it is now on the Statute Book. I well recollect that when the Suspensory Bill was brought in the statement was made that whatever Bill was suspended nobody was to suffer by these suspensions. But I maintain that the suspensions of the Welsh Church Act is going to militate very seriously against the interests of the local authorities. The commutation value of existing interests is included in a return presented by Mr. McKenna in 1915. The value of the existing interests of those who held benefices at that time amounted to £2,150,000. Today we are asked to vote a sum of £3,400,000, a difference of a million and a quarter.

Sir O. PHILIPPS: You are not asked to vote it.

Mr. JONES: In using the word "asked" I was wrong no doubt, but the fact remains that the present Bill, the commutation value is £3,400,000 as against the 1915 value of £2,160,000, and I want to know how the difference is accounted for.
The Home Secretary in an admirable elucidatory speech attempted to explain this. He pointed out that the tithe had advanced from 77, at the date of the passing of the Bill to 136, the anticipated figure at the actual date of Disestablishment at March, 1920. That, I am told, accounts for half a million of money. In addition there is the value of the interests to be computed. Money cannot be now obtained at 3½ pr cent. It brings in 5 per cent. These two items may account for the million and a quarter which is to be paid to the. Church entirely as a result of the suspension of the Act. In my opinion that should not be allowed, and I believe that the payment of this money by the Treasury for this purpose constitutes a precedent most dangerous which might be followed in the future. I have my doubts as to whether the million and a quarter will be sufficient however, and I will tell the House why.
The Home Secretary has calculated the tithe at 136, but the Noble Lord elicited from the right hon. Gentleman the fact that he is going to pay at least a quarter of a million on account of rates. I venture to say that under the present arrangement, that sum is absolutely inadequate. Let us look at the rates as they now stand and compare them with those for the three years preceding the date of the passing of the Act. The average rate paid when tithes stood at seventy-seven—and I am taking figures for my own county—show that the moiety which the incumbent bore—the average moiety in my own county—was £291 10s. 8d. before the War, whereas last year the levy will amount to £l,035. [It is clear, therefore, that the sum has gone up from £291 to £1,035, and looking at it in this way the Treasury moiety is practically doubled. I therefore venture to say that the quarter of a million which the Home Secretary said he would have to provide, in addition to the million he is going to grant to the county councils, is absolutely inadequate. It will be a far larger sum, and I feel that if any rearrangement is to be made it ought to be made in the financial Clauses of this Bill and not by granting money from the Treasury. If that were done, then we should have a clear issue between us. The Government have, in fact, taken the short cut, the line of least resistance. They axe handing over this money to enable the Church Commissioners to commute, otherwise the Act would have been a dead
letter. The honest tiling would have been to say that the War had altered everything, that interests had gone up, that the tithes had gone up, and that, therefore, it was fair and equitable that the whole thing should be rearranged and a fair balance drawn as between both parties. If that course had been adopted, good will would have prevailed. I think it is most unfair that the Government should have had recourse to a Grant from the Treasury for this purpose instead of enabling the House to go fully into the financial position. They are endowing the Church in this way. The tithe has been stablised at 109, and any layman can commute at that figure; but the moment the Welsh Church Commissioners seek to commute they have to do it at an average of 136. This Bill distinctly says that, for the purpose of annuities for the clergy, the yare to be paid at the rate of 136. That is simply a method of subsidising the Church in an indirect way. I may be right or wrong. I am simply giving my own views. I respect the views of the party opposite. I believe they are as conscientious in their view as I am in mine. But let us be quite honest over the matter. I put it to them that it is not straight business to compel an incumbent to accept 109 and for the Church body to get 136 for the tithe and to put the balance in an endowment fund. I go further and say that it is a sorry day for this House and the country when we begin to dole out of the Treasury—which is living not on it sin come but on borrowed capital—£1,000,000 when they are asking the people to save and exercise all the economy they can in order to meet the appalling debt of the country. Here, rather than make a fair rectification of what has occurred through the War, you are asking a depleted Treasury to hand over £1,000,000, and you ask this House to ratify that bargain. It may be ratified here, but I will be no party to it. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chester (Sir O. Philipps) said that he knew a good deal of Wales. I live in Wales and am there practically the whole of my time except when I am in this House. I am perfectly certain there is great feeling on the matter there. I am already beginning to be deluged with letters protesting against the voting of millions of money for the purpose of Church endowment. The matter could have been arranged equitably if we had only put our heads together without going to the Treasury. I protest most vigorously
against this, the first step in a policy which may lead to a great deal of mischief in the future. I will be no party to a measure of this kind. If in Committee I can move Amendments, it will be my duty to do so to try to get some of the anomalies which exist in this Bill put right. I hope that hon. Members opposite who think differently, when they see that the object I have in view is simply to set right what I believe is an anomaly, will give me their assistance.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I, too, with the hon. Member who has just sat down, regret that I can have no part or lot in this Bill. I believe that it is the wrong way to tackle the problem, that it will not lead to good will or to a final settlement, and further that it is a gross betrayal of the interests of the Church in Wales. I confess that on this question I have a. past—that is to say, I have fought two General Elections for a Welsh constituency against the Act which is now on the Statute Book. During those elections and during the Parliaments which followed them, I took up a perfectly definite line. In the last Parliament, until this Act was put on the Statute Book, I opposed it quite frankly on the ground of principle. My principle was that the Welsh county councils had no right to the tithe, that the Welsh universities had no right to the glebe, that the churchyards belonged to the Church and should not be taken away, and that the Welsh dioceses were a part of the Province of Canterbury and should not be separated from that Province without the express decision of the ecclesiastical authorities of that Province. Those were the four points I took. The Act, under peculiar circumstances, was placed on the Statute Book. I remember being asked by the Bishop of St. Asaph to attend a conference at Shrewsbury and to move a resolution, not merely demanding the reconsideration of the terms of Disendowment which were placed by the Act on the Church in Wales, but asking for the total repeal of the Disendowment Sections of the Act. That resolution was submitted to an Assembly of the Church in Wales, and was carried unanimously. I am amazed to hear to-night that the hon. Baronet the Member for Chester (Sir O. Philipps) says that the Welsh Church accepts this Bill. Has the Welsh laity been consulted? This Bill was only printed the day before yesterday, and we did not get the White Paper until this morning. No, it is a bit of episcopal tyranny behind
the backs of the Welsh laity. I for one, until Welsh laymen in Wales have expressed their view upon the details of this Bill, will not give my support to its furtherance or any enactment of it in any shape or form. Why? There seems to be no ground of principle in this Bill.
We have had a most illuminating speech from the Home Secretary. I hope that every Welsh layman will read that speech. He tells us that the lapsed interests are secured to the Church under the old Act. He tells us further that, in the event of the Act coming into force, the commutation of tithe will in any case be on the basis of £136: Therefore, all that we have been Jed by the bishops to believe are advantages to the Church are not secured by this Bill but are in the old Act as it stands now. There is one very important thing which has not been made clear—that is that not one single penny of the amount that was to be secularised under the old Act is to be given back to the Church, but all of it is to be secularised, as provided in the old Act. Those Conservatives and Unionists who supported the Coalition at the last election understood perfectly clearly from our leaders that there was to be reconsideration of the terms of Disendowment. We understood that to mean, at least, that the glebe and the churchyards were to be given back to the Church. In fact, it was generally understood that tithe was to remain with the endowments to come back to the Church. Not one single penny of the amount that was secularised by the Act of 1914 is to be given back to the Church. It is all to be secularised, and money which has hitherto been devoted to religious purposes is, in the year 1950, to be devoted by the county councils to secular schemes for baths and the like. We cannot accept that, because we opposed it on principle, and we are bound to go on opposing it on principle. If we once get away from the principle we imperil the whole ground upon which the Church of England holds its endowments. If it is right to take away from the Church religious property devoted to the services of religion in Wales, it is equally right to take it away from Nonconformist bodies in England or Wales, or from churches in England or Scotland, or any other part of the United Kingdom. If once we get away from that principle it seems to me that we imperil the whole honour of the Church, the whole ground upon which the Church fought the
Bill, the whole ground upon which the bishops left off attending to their episcopal duties and came into the open and engaged in a political fight.
What is of most importance in the Bill is, I need hardly say, Clause 1. If Clause 1 is not passed, I believe that Disendowment will never come into operation—that is to say, if the Welsh Commissioners cease to exist, as they do under the existing law by the end of this year, and the deposit of ratification of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey does not come before that date, the whole of the Act of 1914 as regards Disendowment falls to the ground. We are asked in Clause 1, in a word, to re-enact Disendowment as a whole. I for one cannot be a party to the re-enactment of Disendowment, which I believe to be wrong on principle and in practice. Surely the whole principle of the Coalition was that it should be give and take; that if those of us who have supported the Welsh Church would accept Disestablishment, or even partial Disendowment, some arrangement might be come to. But we have been told by the Home Secretary perfectly clearly that this Bill contains no re-endowment of the Church from the funds which I maintain morally belong to it. I believe that the Welsh county councils have not got a moral right to a single farthing, and until I am absolutely beaten over that I cannot support it.
I am amazed to see the name of the learned Solicitor-General on this Bill. He was one of the staunchest Church defenders in the last Parliament, and now his name is on this, one of the most disgraceful Bills which I believe has ever been introduced into Parliament, for the re-enactment of Disendowment without attempting to meet the root principles of those who were opposed to the original Act. The mere fact that in this Bill there is no mention of the grievance which Churchmen felt most bitterly of all, namely, the confiscation of their churchyards, stamps the Bill as one which has been brought out in a hurry, without open consultation or open diplomacy of any kind, and which is brought into this House without any consultation with those who have been the lay leaders of the Church in the past. I believe that the most disastrous results to the reputation of the Government outside will follow when the provisions of the Bill come to be known. I venture to say that when Churchmen read the speech of the Home Secretary delivered in this House
to-night, and when they read the speech of my Noble Friend the Member for Ox-ford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), there will be a real outcry. Instead of openly asking the Welsh Nonconformists and Church people to come together and see if they could settle their differences in open court, by this Cabinet bargain we have been sold by the Unionist leaders in the matter. Under these circumstances, there will not be peace in Wales, and you will find many laymen like myself, who have been connected with the Church in Wales, who will not be content to come any more under the dictation of the bishops in a matter like this.

Sir E. JONES: I am afraid that we are going to get, after all, into the spirit of the old controversies that are quite irrelevant to this Bill, and that is the reason why, having decided to keep quiet, I, as one of the Welsh Members, intervene in this Debate. I can quite understand and respect the position of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but for the benefit of several new Members of the House who happen to be here to-night but who were not here during the earlier controversies, and are probably not suite clear as to the issues, I want to distinguish for them and to ask their consideration of two very different propositions. The proposition that has been raised by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and by one of my colleagues who was a dissentient from the majority of the other Welsh Members, is a proposition that goes to the root of the original Bill. The hon. Member's standpoint, which I quite understand, is that he will never rest until he gets some reconsideration of the original Bill. I want to suggest to the House that this is not a time to go into that, and this is not a Bill that enters into that at all. We are not here to-night in any way to amend the original Bill in any essential point. We start, in the words of my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Haydn Jones), from the position that the Church was not to be deemed to have gained on the one hand nor the local authorities on the other, but that they were to be in the same position, as the result of the postponement due to the War, as if the War had not taken place. This is a Bill which is attempting simply to see that both sides of the controversy are in the same position as before.
The hon. Member made a rather violent attack on his one-time leaders, the Welsh bishops. But how have the Welsh
bishops come to the position they are in I think it is fair that the House should know. The Government said, "We will have actuarial calculations made, and if it is true that as a result of the War the Church on the one hand has made any loss as compared with its position under the original Bill, then, whatever the loss is, it shall be made up to the Church. If, on the other hand, there has been a loss made by the other side, it shall be made up to them. "The Coalition Members of the Government and the bishops, on the one hand, and, I believe, the majority of the Welsh Members when it was put to them lately, said that that was a fair arrangement. It has turned out, as a result of the actuarial and official inquiries, that the Church has made no floss. It has turned" out, on the other hand, that as the Bill now stands it could not be carried out without making a bankrupt of every county council in Wales. That is quits clear. According to my hon. Friend, and there is a good deal to be said for his point of view, it turns out in a substantial enrichment of the Church as compared with what their position would have been if the original Act had taken effect in 1915, which was the original date. We have tried to take a middle view. We have tried to go into these figures as well as we could, and I should like just briefly to explain to the House what is really the meaning of these figures, and to dissipate a little of the confusion that there has been up to now in the Debate. If it were not for the commutation Clauses of the original Act, none of this bother or difficulty would have arisen, and this Bill would not have been necessary, nor any other Bill like it. The original basis of the Bill was that the tithe was, after the date of Disestablishment, to belong to the county councils and not to the individual incumbents, but there was an obligation upon the county councils to continue to pay during the life of an existing incumbent. If that had been allowed to stand, as the different incumbents died or removed out of Wales the tithe rent-charge belonging to their benefices would fall in, and by the time all the incumbents who were having a right to a benefice at the date of the Act would all have died out, all the tithe rent-charges would have fallen in. It was felt on both sides that that would have been rather an inconvenient process, to wait for these things to happen one at a time. Therefore, rather late in the negotiations
and in the stages of the Bill, it was suggested, Why not bring in a financial scheme to commute the whole of those interests on an annuity basis from the very start 1 It is the fact that that scheme of commuting the whole of the interests was finally introduced into the Bill that has created all this difficulty. It is purely a financial difficulty that we are dealing with to-night, unless, of course, you are going to raise a totally separate issue—namely, the principle of the Bill.
As the original Act now stands, the Church need not accept that commutation scheme. It was optional for the Church to say, "We will have the original form. Let the tithe rent-charges revert to the new authorities as the incumbents die out one by one. "But instead of that they could, on giving notice in writing, demand the payment by the Welsh Commissioners in a lump sum, that they will have to borrow for the purpose, of the whole commuted value of all these life interests. The Tithe Bill of 1918 struck at the root of that. We protested at the time, and pointed out that if that Tithe Bill were carried it would strike at the root of the Welsh Act as it stood, but we could not prevent the Bill passing. Therefore, the position is this: If the Church chooses, and takes up the option offered in the Bill, as I understand it does, it will ask that the whole of these life interests shall be commuted. That will mean that the Welsh Commissioners, who are to administer the Bill, have got to buy out the calculated value of all the life interests and pay that over to the Church representative body. Then you came up against this difficulty—that they would have to buy out these existing life interests at 136, or thereabouts, owing to the effect of the War on the price of wheat and the change in the septennial averages, and in the original Act they will have to commute all these in a lump sum at 136. But the amount that they will receive from year to year from these charges in the meantime will only be 109, because 109 is fixed in the Act of 1918. Therefore, it is not strictly correct to say that the county councils are going to get this money They will never see a farthing of it. It is the Welsh Commissioners who have to administer this Act of commutation. The Welsh Commissioners have to hand over to the Church the value of these commuted interests at 136. But the Welsh county councils will, under the new
scheme, never get a penny till 1950 to start with. Then in 1950 they will get exactly what they would have had under the original Act, and that is what we are arriving at.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Has the hon. Gentleman read the last paragraph of the Government White Paper, which says the Welsh county councils will get £200,000 a year, while it was stated they would only get £150,000 a year?

Sir E. JONES: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will calculate the interest on £150,000 from the original date he will find, and we were told so by the actuary, that £150,000 and £200,000 in 1950 mean exactly the same thing. I said there was hopeless confusion in the minds of some hon. Members.

Mr. H. JONES: The amount will not be the same on account of the interest, but on account of the value of the tithe being higher.

Sir E. JONES: It is the change of date from 1941 to 1950. I am sure the Home-Secretary will confirm that, that it means-the same thing, and the Welsh county councils are not going to get an extra penny in the end. I can assure the Noble Lord and other Friends here that the Welsh Members were the last people in the world who wanted to reopen this old controversy, and I am very pleased to find that, contrary to the speeches of the Noble Lord in this House, throughout the whole of these three years, when the laymen of the Welsh Church and the parish, clergy got the chance, they followed the line that we always said they would, and not the line the Noble Lord said they would take. They have met in their assembly and have decided that they are going to have a National Church of their own. They have asked voluntarily to be severed from the; Province of Canterbury, and to be allowed to have their own Archbishop, and the bishops from that Church have said, in the middle of all this muddle, "For the sake of peace, leave us Welsh people alone! Clear up this financial thing that is due to your Tithe Act of 1918, and its interference with natural operations, and put us all exactly where we were under the original Act, and we are willing not to reopen the business and to settle down as Christian people in the job that, Heaven knows, is difficult
enough, of trying to bring a better nature among the people amongst whom we live."

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): I wish to say a very few words about this Bill, and I speak with a great sense of responsibility. No one in this House, I think, has opposed Disestablishment and Disendowment in Wales longer or more vigorously than I have. I remember making my maiden speech against the Welsh Suspensory Bill in 1893, and I have consistently fought Disestablishment in England or in Wales ever since I have been in any way connected with politics. I have not changed my principles. I object to Disestablishment as a principle. I object to Disendowment, and if I am asked whether I like the present position, I say without hesitation that I do not like it. This Bill confirms in a sense the Welsh Church Act that was passed five years ago. It commits the country to Disestablishment in Wales. It will take away from the Church in Wales and from religion, and devote to secular purposes, something like £900,000. I cannot say that I am enthusiastic for that. I do not think it is a very good peace offering that we can make at this moment. But what is the position? Five years have elapsed since the Act was passed. Great changes have occurred in the five years. We find now that the Act cannot be carried out as it was originally intended. The alteration in the value of tithe has had this result, that if commutation is to be carried out the Welsh county councils will be bankrupt. The Welsh Commissioners come to an end, and if they are to do their work their tenure of office has to be renewed. It is absolutely necessary, therefore, whatever happens, that the Bill should be passed now either for the purpose of enabling the Act to become law or else to repeal the Act and institute a different policy altogether.
What were we to do? We could, if we had liked, have taken up the position which we took up in the year 1914. We could have demanded the repeal of the Act. It might have been consistent on our part if we had done that. It might have saved my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House from the attacks of my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil). But I ask the House,
Would it have been wise and would it have been statesmanlike and would it have succeeded? Supposing those of us who have opposed Disestablishment and Disendowment from the beginning now took the fiery cross through the country and said that we would repudiate this Bill and this policy, and would endeavour to get up an agitation for the repeal of the old Act. If we had done that, we should have made a great mistake and we should never have succeeded in our object. Not only so, but we should have rearoused those feelings of religious bitterness which used, unfortunately, to prevail in the Principality and have prevailed ever since I can remember, but which the War, I am thankful to say, has done very much to get rid of. We should have failed in our object, and in the end, probably, a very much worse Bill, from the Church point of view, would have been carried into law by a Coalition Government, or, it may have been, by a Liberal Government. An Act of some sort was necessary. The existing Act cannot come into law without amendment. It would have ruined the Welsh county councils. Its administration would have been impossible. There was an opportunity of endeavouring to come to some kind of fair compromise which would leave the Church far better off than she would have been under the original Act, and which would solve the difficulties of administration and the financial difficulties of the Welsh county councils. Though I say, without hesitation, that I do not like the policy, that I dislike Disestablishment, and that I have not changed my opinion and do not change my opinion on Disendowment, the only wise and statesmanlike course is the course which has been adopted by responsible representatives of the governing body of the Church in Wales, and to agree with the Government on a Bill of this sort, which, of course, may be capable of amendment in some particulars, which will give far better terms, in fact, to the Church than she would have got under the original Act, and which will, I hope, settle this controversy, so far as Wales is concerned, for all time to come. Therefore, though I do not alter my opinion, my strong advice to all my Friends in this House is that they should accept this Bill, possibly with Amendments in some particulars, which I will not enter into at the present moment, as the best solution of a very difficult problem.
I have referred to the fact of the old difficulty and the dangerous politico-
religious controversy in Wales. I was born and bred in Wales, and I can remember nothing from my youth up except this, that a Churchman was a Tory and a Tory was a Churchman, and that a Liberal was a Nonconformist and a Nonconformist was a Liberal, and whether it was a Parliamentary election or a county council election or a parish council election the Church and the Conservatives voted on one side—more on religious questions than they voted on political questions—and the Nonconformists and Liberals voted on the other side. Does anybody tell me that that is good for religion in Wales? It is the worst possible thing that could happen. If we can get rid of that horrible politico-religious feeling in Wales, the Principality will be the better for it for all time to come. Now we have the chance. I am speaking not only as a Member of Parliament, but as a member of the governing body of the Church in Wales, and I know that, though the majority of the members do not like Disestablishment, though they would sooner see the Act repealed, there is a very strong feeling, which is growing in Wales, that the severance of the Church in Wales, I will not say from the Church of England, but from a province of the Church of England, and the setting up of a separate Welsh province, getting rid for ever of any meaning in the cry of "an alien Church," and creating a Church in Wales, managed by Welsh Churchmen, having its own great history, built up in the history of the Principality, drawing its source of inspiraton from its central union with the Church of England, but at the same time a real national Welsh Church; 1 say that that feeling which is growing up is going to do much for the Church and for religion in Wales, and, in my opinion, if the Church is not absolutely crippled in finance, and she will not be under the terms of this Bill, in a few years' time the old Church in Wales, maligned, misrepresented, us she often has been in the past, will be found to be the biggest, the strongest, and the greatest power in the whole of the Principality. Therefore, we should be very unwise to refuse assent to this measure. I see in this measure the possibility of a great future for the Church and for religion in Wales. I see in it a chance of burying the hatchet so that the religiously-minded men in Wales, be they Churchmen or Nonconformists, may stand together
for the preservation of religion in the Principality, which, after all, is the biggest thing at the present moment. I hope that this attempt to oppose this Bill and to discredit those who are supporting the Bill and to charge people like the Leader of the House with inconsistency or immorality, and to say that if the Conservative party is returned to power we will repeal the old Act or we will restore all the endowments, is really to deal with a situation which does not exist, and which never will exist. Therefore, much as I dislike the principle on which the original Act was founded, yet I feel I am able to accept this Bill, and in doing so I believe that I am acting loyally to the leaders of the Welsh Church who have made this bargain or arrangement, or whatever you chose to call it, with the Government which, of course, must be confirmed by Parliament, and which, I believe, is the best thing that can be. done in the present situation.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I intervene for a few minutes to put before the House the view of the Labour party. The Noble-Lord the Member for the Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) made a most bitter and brutal attack upon the Leader of the House. I have not been a Member of the House for many months, but I must confess that the Leader of the House has always acted kindly and generously whenever he his addressed, the House, and whether I agree with everything that he has said in this House or not lie has always been earnest and sincere in. what he has said. The Noble Lord also accused the Leader of the House, in view of the pledges which he has made when the question of Disestablishment and Disendowment was being discussed in this House, of agreeing with undisguised robbery and doing an injury to religion and breaking the promise which he had. made that whenever a Unionist Government took its place in this House, the Disestablishment Act would be repealed. I have yet to learn that a Unionist Government is in office. The Leader of the House is only a member of a Coalition Government up to now, and no pledge has been broken so far as he is concerned until such time as he becomes the Prime Minister of a Unionist Government. I am not going to touch upon the financial side of the question; I have heard my Friend on the other side of the House who is an extreme Churchman, and I have heard my
Friend on this side who is an extreme Nonconformist. I am a trade union leader, and it is my duty always to try to bring both employers and workmen together, and to try to bring the two extreme ends together by taking a moderate view this evening.
10.0 P.M.
I am the son of an old Nonconformist, and my old dad would have died, so far as fighting for religious liberty in Wales was concerned. He suffered a great amount of tyranny and oppression in these early days because he was a Nonconformist, and I have had it turned into me ever since I have been a child. Some of the Members who have spoken on this Bill have never been down a mine working, and have never been in a tin works or a steel works working; but I have seen Church boys and Nonconformist boys working alongside each other, and not speaking to each other for years, owing to this religious controversy. During the period of the War that has all been killed. Church boys and Welsh Nonconformist boys have been making munitions, working in steel works, and fighting alongside each other in the trenches. Are we now, in the sacred name of these boys, who have sacrificed so much on behalf of their country, going to allow a controversy of this kind to be raised again, and to create bitterness once more? Another thing you have to consider is this: The amount involved is very small. You on the other side have made great promises of reconstruction. We want houses and various other things. It is our duty as a House, and we have promised, to assist the Government in any great measures they bring forward so far as reconstruction is concerned. Let us devote our minds to greater things than the paltry matters which have been raised this evening. I think that that is the solution of the difficulties with which we are faced. I hope that the House will unanimously support the Government, and give a Second Reading to this Bill.

Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the general principles and the objects with which this Bill is brought forward, I cannot do better than associate myself absolutely with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I have noticed that in military matters the very worst position is that a force should be subjected to two fires. In this question I do not think that the same thing is true.
I think it possible that the House may come to the conclusion that a Bill which is attacked with equal bitterness by those who represent the extreme view on both sides is possibly the Bill which does represent the desire of the nation as a whole. My Noble Friend the Member for the Oxford University spoke of me in terms of bitterness which rather surprised me. I have been so long free from attack that it was perhaps a useful stimulus, and I do not in the least resent it. One of the things which he said, and which I must say did surprise me, was that I had qualified to take a place in a Jesuit College. Well, I do not suppose that that can happen in this life. Nobody can say with certainty what his future may be in some other sphere. I hardly anticipate that that will happen to me, but if it does, although after the speech of my Noble Friend to-night I would not expect to be very kindly treated, yet I would rather face the evil I know than the unknown, and in that case I hope I may be billeted in one of the Jesuit colleges of which my Noble Friend is certain to be the head.
I do not like to deal with these charges of breach of faith. I say this with some strength, that nothing can be worse than that there should be doubt about the good faith of public men, and although I admit that if there is ground for such accusation it is quite right that it should be made, on the other hand I do contend that to make it without clear ground is one of the greatest disservices which can be done to our public life. What is the ground on which this charge is based? My Noble Friend quoted a number of speeches, in all of which I expressed the view, which I still hold, that the State had no right to take the Endowments from the Welsh Church. But does my Noble Friend or anyone suggest that if in fighting a proposal of this kind you put forth your best efforts to defeat it you are bound for all time to take steps to upset what has been done by Parliament? That charge cannot be substantiated. The ground on which the charge is made is this: On 21st April, 1914. I said this,
If a Unionist Government is returned to power I am sure that one of the first things that Government will do will be to restore to the Church in Wales the funds of which you are depriving it.
Obviously, therefore, that pledge can apply only if a Unionist Government is returned to power. My Noble Friend recognised that, and he said a Unionist Government
is in power. How does he justify that? He tells me that my right hon. Friend (the Prime Minister) can do nothing unless I agree to it. That is time on the one assumption that the members of the party which I have the honour to lead will follow me, and will not all act, as my Noble Friend does, in taking a lead of his own whenever he desires to do so. It is perfectly true that that gives us the power to prevent things being done; it gives me absolutely no power to do anything, for obviously my right hon. Friend, though he cannot command a majority without the support of Unionist Members, can prevent the Government of which he is the head doing anything, and can take whatever steps he likes to test the country as to whether a Unionist Government ought to carry on the government of this country. At the meeting of our party before the last election, when the advice I gave that we should fight it as a Coalition was. unanimously accepted, I stated, in the most explicit terms, which nobody could misunderstand, that the taking of that decision meant that we could not go back after an election with the same policy as we would have adopted if we had gone back as a Unionist party alone. Is there a Member of this House, however strong he may feel on this or any other question, who does not recognise that although there is a Unionist majority in this House, yet a very large number of those Members were returned with the help of Liberal votes, which were given to them not as Unionists but because they were pledged to support the Coalition Government, of which my right hon. Friend was the head? I was told at the time of the election that a great many of our candidates—I hope it was not true of myself; I would rather have stood on my own bottom—had this poster circulated on their behalf:
 Every vote given for ߪ is a vote for Lloyd George.
To say that we are returned as a Unionist party is one of the most absurd claims ever made. I cannot understand how anyone can make that charge. My Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) was quite clear about it. He left the Coalition Government for the specific reason that my right hon. Friend and I refused to give an undertaking that if we were returned we would demand that the whole of the endowments should be returned. I hope I have said enough to dispose of that particular charge.
Now we come to the merits of the question, and that is much more important. My Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University suggested that the arrangement that we had come to with the Church Council in Wales was arrived at because we were dealing with simple bishops, and that if they had had information that all that this Act was doing was to give them something which they could get without it, then they would never have come to such an arrangement. As I listened to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary I was impressed with the success with which the simple bishops and I myself had pressed our view upon the Government and upon my right hon. Friend. It is perfectly true, in my opinion, that this Bill gives the Church nothing to which, under the Act of 1914, it is not entitled, but it does do this. The net result is that the Church is better to the extent of a revenue of £50,000 a year than it would have been if Disestablishment had taken place prior to the War. It is quite true that, in my view, the Church is entitled to that, and that if would be unjust to deprive her of it. What follows? The Church is entitled to it, but it can only get without an Act of Parliament what the Church Commissioners have to give. That seems to me overlooked.
The alternative to the course I have adopted would be obviously for the party which supports the Church in Wales, for our party, to say that we will have no compromise of this kind, that we will go again on party lines, that we will fight another election as a Unionist party. Well, if we do, the Church in Wales will, I suppose, gain from a financial point of view, though I venture to express the opinion that on larger grounds, from the point of view of what the strength of the Welsh Church will be in future, it would lose rather than gain by such a gamble. That is my view. Look at what it means. You have to take the chance of winning that election without a new Bill. All that can happen is that the Welsh Church will make this claim; the Commissioners have not the money to give; they can sue the Commissioners. They could not sue the Government. They might have a right to the money, but they would not get it. The arrangements we have made is that the Church does get this additional sum of money, and is thus enabled to carry on the work enormously better than would have been the case. It is said that the
bishops did not understand the arrangement. I want the House of Commons to understand that the views expressed by my Noble Friend and those who have supported him do not represent in the smallest degree the views or wishes of the Church in Wales.
Those who are entitled to speak for the Church in Wales look upon themselves as trustees for the interests of that Church. They are not prepared to make the Church for why they are responsible a pawn in any political manœuvre. They have got to look at the interests of the Church and of the Church alone. That is the position, and it is really absurd to suggest that it is only bishops who have taken part in these negotiations and in these arrangements. I was told by my be Friend that for the rest of my political life I would be hampered at every turn because of the Church which I betrayed. Will the House allow me to read a letter which I have received from the Bishop of St. Asaph, who is the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Welsh Church and who alone is the one man entitled to speak for that Church:
Dear Mr. Bonar Law,
I have studied carefully the draft of the "Welsh Church Temporalities Bill, and although the Bill does not fulfil the wishes and hopes I entertained I am prepared to accept it as it stands. I say this because I am confident that whatever the disappointment of the Churchmen in Wales may be, they will gladly welcome an immediate settlement which gives promise of permanency and co-operation for the future.
That is the letter I have received from the spokesman of this Church which I have betrayed. It does not end there. There has been throughout to represent the interests of the Welsh Church a Parliamentary Committee. It consists of four Welsh bishops and of representative laymen from every diocese in Wales. They have considered this Bill. They, too, have passed a resolution which was read I understand by an hon. Member of this House, and I will read it also to the House:
This Committee having carefully considered the provisions of the Welsh Church Temporalities Bill, while reaffirming its conviction against the principle of Disendowment, realises so strongly the urgent need of an immediate settlement that it is prepared to accept the Bill, although regretting the non-inclusion in it of ancient churchyards and endowments other than tithes.
There is the position. The Church does not pretend that it has received everything it would like. I do not suggest that.
I should have liked to see even; a larger Grant given to the Church in Wales. I should, but the House is under a great misapprehension if it is under the impression that in dealing with questions of this kind I go to my right hon. Friend as an opponent trying to drive the hardest bargain. It is not on that basis that this Government is being conducted, and it is not on that basis that it could last for a week. That could not be done. We discuss these problems together, and I have been dealing with this one, I may say, at frequent meetings of those interested in the Church of Wales for months. We discuss these problems not merely from the point of view of being fair to the different interests which are represented with the Coalition; we discuss them on broader grounds than that, and on this ground, that the only justification for a Government of this kind is that it should aim, in these old party controversies, at finding some middle course which will commend itself to the good sense and good feeling of the mass of the people of this country. That is the basis on which we have gone, and I believe that the arrangement is a justification for our attempts. I am going to say nothing more. I am not going into the merits of this arrangement. I think I have justified my share in it by showing to the House that I have satisfied those who alone are entitled to speak for the Church in Wales that I have made an arrangement which ought to be accepted. I think I have fulfilled my task, but I was sorry, not at all for the views that may be held about me by my Noble Friend, though I do not mean to say that I would not like his respect if I could get it, not for that reason, but for the opinion which may be held by Churchmen in Wales and by Churchmen in England and in Scotland as well. He said that I had got what I wanted, by bullying my right hon. Friend, I suppose, in regard to Colonial Preference, because I cared for it. The trade policy has not yet been put before the House of Commons. We are dealing with it in precisely the same spirit in which we have dealt with the Welsh Church. I cannot guarantee that when the time comes there might not be some—I hope they will be equally few and equally unreasonable—who will take the view which has been taken by my Noble Friend on this occasion, but I do not like, and I think it is unjust, that there should be any suggestion that I have not used whatever
influence was in my power in the interests of the Welsh Church as strongly as I should use it in the interests of any other cause for which I felt strongly. Throughout the whole struggle in connection with that Bill, though I am not a member of the Church of England, to the best of my ability I have fought it as strenuously as I could fight any cause, and I was glad to be able to fight it, for this reason, that I never could be of any use in any cause in which I could not believe, and I did believe most firmly that to take away the Endowment from a poor Church at a time when there was little enough spent on religion was both unjust and unwise. I thought so; I think so now; and I am convinced that whatever may be the opinion of a certain number of Members of this House, those who are responsible for the Church in Wales, the vast majority of the members of that Church, will think that the course which I have adopted is wiser, in the interests of that Church, than the course which is suggested by my Noble Friend.
That is my case, and let me say this further. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. It is worth paying a big price, if necessary: it is worth, perhaps, the price of being subjected to such charges, if you can get rid of a controversy which has been a source of endless harm, not only in Wales, but in England as well. We are living in, times which must fill every earnest man with anxiety, and everyone knows that preaching is not in my line, but I do say this, that when we find everywhere that the new heaven and the new earth which is being preached at so many street corners and on so many platforms represents a world where there will be no hardships, because nobody will do anything except what he wants, where everything is material, where there is no thought of anything beyond it, I say that when we look at conditions of that kind, any man who does not do what is in his power to break anything that separates the Churches which are preaching the game thing is doing something of which he has no reason to be proud.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I hope the House will believe me when I say that nothing has been further from my thoughts throughout the whole of this controversy than to say anything—of course, I may, in the heat of debate, have said things, and some of my opponents may have said
things, which perhaps are now regretted—but I have never intended to say anything; which would embitter the religious controversy in Wales. I agree most fully with. the closhing words of my right hon. Friend that it is of the utmost possible importance-that all should work together—and work together heartily and cordially—and I hope I have never done anything to hinder the consummation of that object. I will endeavour in what I am going to say to avoid saying anything that may be wounding to anybody. My right hon. Friend defended his position, and it seems to me that what it really amounted to was this. He said, in the first place—I am not taking the order of his observations, but the substance of them—that in a Coalition you must have perpetual compromise. Yes, Sir, and that is the principal difficulty of a Coalition. Compromises are right enough in questions of expediency, but when you come to questions of deep principle, then compromises are merely colourless. You have no right to compromise on a question of vital principle. That is wrong, and to do what is wrong is never, in my judgment, what is expedient. That is the real difficulty. My right hon. Friend and I, I am. afraid, approach this question from different points of view. He regards it as a question of ordinary political expediency. He thinks the Welsh Church Act was a grave mistake, unwise, and unjust. But he does not think more—at least, so I understand his speech this evening. Therefore, he says, "When I see an opportunity for settling the controversy by admitting a certain amount of the principle which was contended for on. the other side, I do so, and surely I am wise. I am following the ordinary principles of English public life in settling a controversy. I am making for peace. I am securing an end to religious differences," and all the rest of it. But if you take the view that Disendowment was morally indefensible, what then? Are you still to compromise?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is perfectly true, but the time to raise that question—and we did raise it—was when we agreed to have a Coalition election. It was impossible afterwards.

Lord R. CECIL: That, of course, is an observation my right hon. Friend is entirely entitled to make. But, so far as I am personally concerned, it evidently does
not affect me. I must have misunderstood the whole thing then. I resigned—it is on record if anyone cares to go into the history of the thing—because I was not satisfied with the definiteness of the pledge the Prime Minister gave. I have no kind of quarrel with the Prime Minister, of course, but I was not satisfied with the pledge. I certainly never understood, and I do not think it is possible in reading the Prime Minister's letter to my right hon. Friend to understand, that it was a definite repudiation of the possibility of settlement on the lines on which the Unionist party had always stood. I have the passage here from my right hon. Friend's letter, and if it is of any interest to the House I will read it—
Finally, there is the question of Welsh Disestablishment. I am certain that nobody wishes to reopen religious controversy at this time. The Welsh Church Act is on the Statute Book, and I do not think that there is any desire, even on the part of the Welsh Church itself, that the Act should be repealed. But I recognise that the long continuance of the War has created financial problems which must be taken into account. I cannot make any definite proposals at the present moment, but I do not believe that once this question of principle no longer arises it will be found impossible to arrive at a solution of these financial difficulties.
That was a statement that some assistance would be given to the Welsh Church —at least. so I understand it.
In a reply to that I said:
In deals with Disendowment as if it was unobjectionable in itself, but admits that owing to subsequent events a compassionate allowance to the Welsh Church might be made. To me Disendowment is still an act of spoliation, objectionable both as a conversion to worldly uses of funds properly applicable to religious purposes, and as an attack on the security of property.
I said a promise of some assistance is not enough for me unless you also concede that privilege I understand exactly to be conceded. I certainly never assumed that that meant that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—I am not going to say anything about freedom from pledges, or any. thing of that sort—I quite agree that the less Breach of pledges is thrown about the better—had completely changed the opinion which I understood him to hold up to that time. That is the position which I hold. The next point that my right hon. Friend made —at least, so I understand him —was that he could not have offered other terms to the Welsh Church without another election. I am amazed at that statement. I can scarcely believe
it. It is, of course, possibly true. I can not myself think that it would have necessitated another General Election if there had been insistence on the rights of the Welsh Church, and as to whether we should take that attitude we always maintained in connection with the Welsh Church Act. The strongest point made by my right hon. Friend was that this Bill was accepted and supported by the Welsh. Church, or those who were entitled to speak for it. I listened very carefully to what my right hon. Friend read, and the copy of the resolution which the Parliamentary Committee passed. What did it amount to? They said—I am phrasing it, but I think not unfairly—"We do not like this Bill. It does not give us that to which we are entitled. It does not re verse Disendowment, as we think it ought to reverse it, but it does give us some thing. And we are accepting it as such." I do not think they say more than that. Then I should very much like to know exactly what they were told before they accepted the offer. Were they informed of the opinion of the Law Officers? No answer ! I assume they were not. There fore, they went into this—

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think the Noble Lord should misunderstand, nor do I wish to be understood. The Law Officers' opinion was only given this morning; but I myself stated to the Bishop of St. Asaph, who represented the Church, what in the view of the Home Secretary—who is a lawyer—the Law Officers' opinion precisely was.

Lord R. CECIL: I am very much- obliged to my right hon. Friend, but it is evident that- if they were told—and I certainly understand that if they were not told they received a very positive assurance—that unless they agreed to this Bill, in the first place, they would get no Bill at all, and in the second place, they would not get either what are called —I will say exactly what I mean later—lapsed interests—they would not be entitled to treat—

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend is quite wrong. They were never told anything of the kind.

Lord R. CECIL: I am sure they were told—not by the right hon. Gentleman. [Hon. Members: "Name !"] Lastly, I should like to know what they were informed as to the effect of the Tithe Act. That is one of the reasons for objecting to Bills founded on private negotiations,
because you never know what takes place. Somebody says," This is an agreed Bill, and the House of Commons need not be anxious or nervous, because it has been Accepted by those who understand it; pass the Bill and have done with it." I dislike that method of passing legislation, and it is much fairer and better to everybody concerned that questions of this kind should be threshed out in public, and then we know exactly what takes place. On the merits—and that is the most important part—I want to try and explain what I understand from the Home Secretary's speech to be the effect of this Bill. I am not going into the details.
There are two parts of this Bill. In the first place there is the declaratory part and the enacting part. In the declaratory part it declares what the Home Secretary and the Law Officers believe is the law already, and the Welsh Church is to be entitled, in reckoning the amount paid for commutation of the existing interests, to take into consideration the interests which did exist at the passing of the Act of 1914. That, the Home Secretary tells us—and it is the best legal advice available to the Government—is the law under the 1914 Act; and no change is made by this Bill. Secondly, it provides that the commutation is to be paid on the tithe rent-charge at 137. That, again, the Home Secretary tells us, was the fair meaning of the Act of 1914; and the (Solicitor-General, who is a Conservative lawyer, and the Attorney-General, who is a Liberal lawyer, agreed in that determination. Therefore, those Clauses of the Act gave nothing to the Church, and that is important to observe.
They declare what was already the law, and they do no more. What does the Bill do in fact? It gives £ 1,250,000, I understand, one way and another, which, as the Home Secretary very fairly told us specifically, was £ 1,125,000 given to the county councils. I am not going into the question of policy, but I can conceive English and Scottish Members saying to to themselves, "Why should we pay £1,250,000 to relieve Welsh county councils who have made a bad bargain in accepting this spoliation of the Welsh Church?" What else does the Bill do? Apart from small matters, it does one very important thing: it prolongs the life of the Welsh Commissioners. Why is that very important? It is very important because, without prolonging the life
of the Welsh Commissioners, the whole of the Disendowment Clauses of the Act would be in danger of coming to an end altogether. I would not interfere with Disestablishment, but it would with Disendowment. Under the Welsh Disestablishment Act, the provision for Disendowment is that the property of the Church—I am putting it much more shortly and in different language from that of the Act, but I think I am putting it fairly—the property of the Church is vested in the Welsh Commissioners. Therefore, if the Welsh Commissioners are not there, the property cannot be vested in them, and the whole. of the Disendowment Clauses would fall to the ground. The Welsh Commissioners come to an end at the end of this year, and the time of vesting is the date of Disestablishment. The date of Disestablishment is the end of the War; and the end of the War, as defined by Act of Parliament, means the ratification of the Treaty with the last of our enemies. If, therefore, the ratification of the Treaty with the last of our enemies does not take place before the end of this year, the whole of the Disendowment Clauses come to an end.
I am not saying that it would be right to leave the position thus, but I want to call the attention of the House to the real effect of this Bill from the point of view of those who regard Disendowment as robbery. It gives no alleviation to the Disendowment provisions at all; they are left exactly as they would have been if this Bill had never been introduced. That is the statement of the Home Secretary. But it does provide that the Disendowment Clauses shall certainly have effect. Therefore this Bill really is to make Disendowment perfectly certain, and it has no other effect at all so far as Disendowment is concerned. I do not want, as I have said, to hurl accusations of bad faith, but I recollect that it was my business to attend night after night and listen to the Debates on the original Bill, and I remember that every one of the leaders of the Unionist party—my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the late Mr. Alfred Lyttelton, my hon. Friend who spoke this evening (Sir A. Boscawen), my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Board of Trade, the Solicitor-General—they all made statements, according to my very strong recollection, to the effect that the Bill was not only unwise in policy, but
that it was robbery, or words to that effect—that it was a gross act of oppression, and was taking property winch the State had no right to touch, and giving it from religions uses to secular uses. It was said over and over again by everybody. I said it and, of course, I said it in the strongest possible language. But I was not alone. I may perhaps be allowed to quote a little. In 1915 the question again arose of prolonging the date of Disestablishment. It was just after the first Coalition Government had been formed, and the question was whether the Government had given us a pledge that they would extend the period of Disestablishment. If that had been done, the Disestablishment Sections would certainly have failed. As a matter of fact, we agreed to let them oft their pledge. There is no doubt about what happened. I was asked to speak on behalf of the Unionist party, and to intimate the assent of that party to that arrangement. I said this—I remember it very well—
I am authorised by the leaders of our party, both in this House and in the House of Lords, to say that, in acquiescing in the course proposed, it must be clearly understood that their views on the question of the Welsh Church have undergone no change, and that the pledges that they have given in connection with it are still binding on them. I hope that that will be perfectly understood in the country as well as in this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1915, col. 1994, Vol. 73.]
Then I ventured to try to summarise what I, in my innocence, thought was the view of the party to which I belonged and my leaders. I said this:
I am not going into the weary controversy again, but what are the great principles involved on each side? Those who desire this change are actuated, they tell us—I am quite ready to believe it—by a desire for religious equality, and a profound and growing belief in the national feeling of Wales. On the other hand, we who are opposed to Disestablishment and Disendowment are actuated —I ask them to believe it as fully as I believe their account of their own feeling —by a genuine fear of the secularisation of the State and a passionate belief in the unfairness and impolicy of Disendowment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1915, col. 1995, Vol. 73.]
Even this year a memorial was presented to my right hon. Friend, signed by the Solicitor-General and by my hon. Friend who has spoken in this Debate, and they said this:
The appropriation of these endowments by the State has always been regarded by the Church as an act of spoliation.
They recalled the speeches of my right hon. Friend, and say,
Your memorialists ask that the Welsh, Church should be fully reimbursed for the loss of the endowments,
and they go on to ask for the restoration of churchyards, and for the reversal of the policy of driving out the Church in Wales, without its consent, from the Church of England. Can the House wonder, after all that, that we should not feel—I will put it no higher—some surprise that these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen should now come down supporting a Bill which is not going to make the Church one penny better off than it would be without the Bill, and which is going to prolong the machinery which is available for Disestablishment? That is really the position. I am not going to argue at length whether we were right or wrong about our objections to Disendowment, but I want to say this: We arc coming to a period when one of the great controversies will be as to the rights of property. I am one of those who believe that if you destroy the belief in private property you are going to undermine one of the foundations on which the State rests. I do not think civilisation can exist unless-you maintain the belief that a man has a right to the property which he owns. What is my right hon. Friend's statement on this question? He says, in clear language, that by every principle on which private property is held the Church is entitled to its endowments. Quite apart from the question of the breach of faith I venture to put to my colleagues in this House that the question is, Is this really a wise measure? Are they really wise to vote to-day in favour of a Bill which endorses the principle of Disendowment? Are they really sure that the endowments of the Church can be distinguished from private property, and did not my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House use the right term when he said there was no distinction? No one will claim that anyone has a right to property whatever he does with it. The principle underlying the trust is that it must not be used to the detriment of the State, and if it is so used it may be taken away from the person to whom it belongs. No doubt there are compensations to be given. Yes, but you are not giving the Welsh Church fair compensation. You are confiscating this property; you are taking it without giving any compensation in return. On what principle are you going to distinguish that Act from the action recommended by those who are
enemies of private property? I venture to say you will find it extremely difficult in the coming controversy to make any such difference. If you agree to this you will be reminded that you have voted for the endorsement of the principle in spite of the warning given, but now apparently forgotten by our leaders. That is the view I take. In 1913 and 1914 I said to my leaders that the taking of this property was robbery, and I meant it, and I will not be a party to any endorsement of a principle which I believe to be morally wrong. I am very sorry to differ with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am extremely sorry to give even the slightest feasibility to the charge that I am re-arousing the religious difficulty. But even the bitterness and danger of the religious difficulty is equally as deplorable as the loss of trust in the absolute reliability of the statements of public men. Those of us who think as I do—that what was proposed in 1913–14 was robbery—have no right to come down here for any political consideration, however convenient such a course may be, to urge the House to accept and endorse a policy which we then denounced as we did. I should deeply regret if it was really a question between rearousing the bitterness of this controversy and keeping faith with statements which have been made in public. But I see no reason why that should be so. I cannot see why those who

wish for religious liberty, those who believe in the nationality of Wales, should not be satisfied to leave the Church to carry on her work. It is not as if it was a very rich Church. It is not as if it was pretended that she has misapplied her funds. No one has denied right through the whole controversy that the Church has honestly, honourably and faithfully discharged her duties to the Welsh people. Yet you are going to take this, property away. I dare say it will not cripple her. I dare say she will recover. Persecution very often does good to a religious body, but that is no defence to the persecutor. I dare say she will not even be injured, but you are going to take the property away without a shadow of justification, without being able to say to yourselves, to your consciences, or to anyone, that the Church has misused her position and is no longer entitled to her property. You are going to take it away not because you believe it is right, not because you think it is a necessary sacrifice to justice, but merely in order to facilitate the operations of a Coalition Cabinet. That is a course of action which anyone who endorses it will profoundly regret in time to come, which will lower the opinion of the public of this House and of Ministers, and which will not produce any compensating advantage, and one to which I will not be a party.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 37.

Division No. 87.]
AYES.
[10.57 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Carr, W. T.
Ganzoni, Captain F. C.


Amery, Lieut.-Col. L. C. M. S.
Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Casey, T. W.
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd


Atkey, A. R.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Baird, John Lawrence
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel John.


Baldwin, Stanley
Clough, R.
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)


Barnett, Captain Richard W.
Coats, Sir Stuart
Gregory, Holman


Barrand, A. R.
Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.
Gretton, Col. John


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)


Beck, Arthur Cecil
Courthope, Major George Loyd
Griggs, Sir Peter


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Grundy, T. W.


Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hacking, Captain D. H.


Bennett, T. J.
Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)
Hailwood, A.


Birchall, Major J. D.
Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)


Blades, Sir George R.
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Henderson. Major V. L.


Blair, Major Reginald
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Hinds, John


Beyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Bridgeman, William Clive
Edwards, J. H. (Glam, Neath)
Hood, Joseph


Bruton, Sir J.
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)


Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonel A.
Falcon, Captain M.
Home, Sir Robert (Hillhead)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hughes, Spencer Leigh


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)


Cape, Tom
Foxcroft, Captain C.
Inskip, T. W. H.


Jameson, Major J. G.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Spencer, George A.


Jesson, C.
Parry, Major Thomas Henry
Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Johnson, L. S.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Suphenson, Colonel H. K.


Johnstone, J.
Perring, William George
Stewart, Gorshom


Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Sugden, W. H.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Pownall, Lieut-Colonel AssJistoo
Sutherland, Sir William


Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Pratt, John William
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Purchase, H. G.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Knights, Captain H.
Raeburn, Sir William
Townley, Maximilan G.


Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Tryon, Major George Clement


Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Lorden, John William
Raw, Sir J. D.
Waddington, R.


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Reid, D. D.
Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Lowther, Col. C. (Lonsdale, Lanes.)
Randall, Atheistan
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


Lunn, William
Renwick, G.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Mallalieu, Frederick William
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)
Weston, Colonel John W.


Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.I
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lanes.)
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Manville, Edward
Rodger, A. K.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)
Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)


Matthews, David
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Middlebrook, Sir William
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Mitchell, William Lane-
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Worsfold, T. Cato


Mond, Rt Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Seager, Sir William
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Morris, Richard
Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kllmarnock)
Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Younger, Sir George


Murray, William (Dumfries)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.


Neal, Arthur
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W)
Taibst and Captain F. Guest.


Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)
Sitch, C. H.



Parker, James
Smith, Harold (Warrington)



NOES.


Ainsworth, Capt. C.
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Remer, J. B.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Horne, Edgar (Guildford)
Remnant, Col. Sir J.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)
Kidd, James
Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.


Bettorton, H. B.
Lioyd, George Butler
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Bowerman, Right Hon. C. W.
Lort-Williams, J.
Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Maddocks, Henry
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Wolmer, Viscount


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchln)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES  —Lt.-Col.


Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Sir S. Hoare and Major Ormsby- Gore.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Oman, C. W. C.



Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)
Perkins, Walter Frank



Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel



Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Shortt.]

Orders of the Day — WAR PENSIONS (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[Sir Laming Worthington-Evans.]

Mr. G. THORNE: May I take it that there is no intention of carrying the Bill beyond this stage to-night?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir L. Worthington-Evans): That cannot be done without a Financial Resolution.

Orders of the Day — WELSH CHURCH (TEMPORALITIES) [MONEY].

Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of the sum of £1,000,000 to the Welsh Commissioners under any Act of the present Session to continue in office the Welsh Commissioners appointed under the Welsh Church Act, 1914, to postpone the date of Disestablishment, and to make further provision with respect to the temporalities of and marriages in the Church in Wales—(King's Recommendation signified)—Tomorrow.—[Mr. Shortt.]

Orders of the Day — WAR PENSIONS (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) (REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES).

Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of remuneration to the members of pensions appeal tribunals constituted under any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the administration of the enactments relating to Naval, Military, and Air Force, War Pensions, Grants, and Allowances, and of any expenses which may be incurred by a
tribunal under such Act—(King's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[Sir L. Worthington-E'vans.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Sanders.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.